PDA

View Full Version : For The Sake Of Truth



ananomyx
October 23rd, 2015, 02:33 PM
When did Christianity lose its objectivity to people saying "just having faith". Faith must be reasonable and rational. Thats why I converted from atheism. A lack of knowldege of the scriptures is common in todays day which goes against 1Peter 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready to ALWAYS give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.

We cannot simply tell people to 'just believe'. There is a correct way of viewing reality, let's seek this TRUTH together, but never make the error of telling someone to just take our word for it. Any worldview must make sense as a whole collectively.

Nick M
October 23rd, 2015, 06:01 PM
We cannot simply tell people to 'just believe'.

Right. You tell them what to believe and why. As Paul did, you open up the scriptures (Old Testament) and prove it.

Hedshaker
October 23rd, 2015, 06:13 PM
When did Christianity lose its objectivity to people saying "just having faith". Faith must be reasonable and rational. Thats why I converted from atheism. A lack of knowldege of the scriptures is common in todays day which goes against 1Peter 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready to ALWAYS give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.

We cannot simply tell people to 'just believe'. There is a correct way of viewing reality, let's seek this TRUTH together, but never make the error of telling someone to just take our word for it. Any worldview must make sense as a whole collectively.

I bet you really hated God before you converted from atheism, huh?

:yawn:

George Affleck
October 23rd, 2015, 08:40 PM
When did Christianity lose its objectivity to people saying "just having faith". Faith must be reasonable and rational. Thats why I converted from atheism. A lack of knowldege of the scriptures is common in todays day which goes against 1Peter 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready to ALWAYS give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.

We cannot simply tell people to 'just believe'. There is a correct way of viewing reality, let's seek this TRUTH together, but never make the error of telling someone to just take our word for it. Any worldview must make sense as a whole collectively.

I agree with this criticism wholeheartedly.

When I look at religious scholars of the past and their credentials, I am awestruck. They had none of the easy-life tools we have and yet some were more talented, learned and prolific than any we have today. Our knowledge is extremely shallow in comparison.

But there is one truth on which all generations agree: ours is not a blind faith.

ananomyx
October 23rd, 2015, 09:33 PM
I bet you really hated God before you converted from atheism, huh?

:yawn:
i dont think i hated God. I hated the idea of people believing in a God. Yet when I seen the complexity of the universe and find it began at a point in time I was logically lead to a beginning the requires a beginner. I was lead to understanding that life has never been observed to come from nonlife. I understood that for there to be such thing as good and evil, then logically im appealing to some sort perfect moral law. i understood humanity is imperfect and could never be that perfect standard we know about. And to say we are but chemical reactions leads to an inconsistent worldview that doesnt align with the other evidences that exist....

fzappa13
October 23rd, 2015, 09:39 PM
I agree with this criticism wholeheartedly.

When I look at religious scholars of the past and their credentials, I am awestruck. They had none of the easy-life tools we have and yet some were more talented, learned and prolific than any we have today. Our knowledge is extremely shallow in comparison.

But there is one truth on which all generations agree: ours is not a blind faith.

Not to side track (though that is occasionally my wont) but I am a part of a generation that has gone from books to radios to TV to the internet and there is one thing I would warn those who seek information ... each step along the way this "information" has become more easily accessible and ...

You get what you pay for ...

patrick jane
October 23rd, 2015, 09:41 PM
i dont think i hated God. I hated the idea of people believing in a God. Yet when I seen the complexity of the universe and find it began at a point in time I was logically lead to a beginning the requires a beginner. I was lead to understanding that life has never been observed to come from nonlife. I understood that for there to be such thing as good and evil, then logically im appealing to some sort perfect moral law. i understood humanity is imperfect and could never be that perfect standard we know about. And to say we are but chemical reactions leads to an inconsistent worldview that doesnt align with the other evidences that exist....

I pray that you will find the right people here and share and study with them. heir, STP, Nick M, Tambora and many others in MAD. It's a study of Paul's epistles and the gospel of grace, the gospel of our salvation.

1 Corinthians 15:1-2 KJV - 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV -


Ephesians 1:7 KJV - Ephesians 1:13 KJV

when you hear and believe and trust that Christ saved you, you are saved and seal. Nothing can change that, so relax and learn !!!

ananomyx
October 23rd, 2015, 09:47 PM
I pray that you will find the right people here and share and study with them. heir, STP, Nick M, Tambora and many others in MAD. It's a study of Paul's epistles and the gospel of grace, the gospel of our salvation.

1 Corinthians 15:1-2 KJV - 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV -


Ephesians 1:7 KJV - Ephesians 1:13 KJV

when you hear and believe and trust that Christ saved you, you are saved and seal. Nothing can change that, so relax and learn !!!
i believe salvation comes from trusting and believing and everything you wrote.
What im referring to is claiming that we can speak to unbelievers about the Word of God and expect them to 'just believe'
I use to be an atheist and that is the worst answer to give someone!
Im trying to explain that as believers saved by grace through faith we are called to be able to defend the scriptures logically and rationally. Same way paul and the apostles did.

fzappa13
October 23rd, 2015, 09:51 PM
i believe salvation comes from trusting and believing and everything you wrote.
What im referring to is claiming that we can speak to unbelievers about the Word of God and expect them to 'just believe'
I use to be an atheist and that is the worst answer to give someone!
Im trying to explain that as believers saved by grace through faith we are called to be able to defend the scriptures logically and rationally. Same way paul and the apostles did.

Here we go ... I'm outta here :rapture:

ananomyx
October 23rd, 2015, 10:00 PM
Here we go ... I'm outta here :rapture:
lol. Im not understanding what your asking?

Bradley D
October 23rd, 2015, 10:37 PM
I believe one must feel a need for God. I was on an mental/detox ward and I reached for the Gideon's NT. I did not believe that anything was left for me other than God. God was the missing part of me.

"The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" (1 Cor. 12:21)

fzappa13
October 23rd, 2015, 10:42 PM
lol. Im not understanding what your asking?

I know. You're new around these parts. You're about to get a visit from a little clatch of folks I'm a little tired of listening to right about now.

Hedshaker
October 24th, 2015, 05:33 AM
i dont think i hated God. I hated the idea of people believing in a God. Yet when I seen the complexity of the universe and find it began at a point in time I was logically lead to a beginning the requires a beginner. I was lead to understanding that life has never been observed to come from nonlife. I understood that for there to be such thing as good and evil, then logically im appealing to some sort perfect moral law. i understood humanity is imperfect and could never be that perfect standard we know about. And to say we are but chemical reactions leads to an inconsistent worldview that doesnt align with the other evidences that exist....

All the usual god-of-the-gaps cliché's. Gotta love em. You just can't beat good old supernatural magic :think:

CherubRam
October 24th, 2015, 06:14 AM
There is a truth, but few are able to find it. The bible says that God had a beginning, therefore He evolved; afterward He created. Read my motto.


Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

Psalm 31:5
Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O Lord God of truth.

Isaiah 65:16
That he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes.

John 14:17
the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

John 15:26
“When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

1 John 4:6
We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

ananomyx
October 24th, 2015, 09:14 AM
All the usual god-of-the-gaps cliché's. Gotta love em. You just can't beat good old supernatural magic :think:
do you not consider the universe popping into and bringing forth space time and matter and all the universal constants from infinite density "supernatural magic" lol

chrysostom
October 24th, 2015, 09:21 AM
We cannot simply tell people to 'just believe'.

and

we cannot simply take their word for it
when
they tell us to just believe

ananomyx
October 24th, 2015, 09:22 AM
and

we cannot simply take their word for it
when
they tell us to just believe
We must always provide a reasonable defense and choose what makes sense logically!

ananomyx
October 24th, 2015, 10:52 AM
There is a truth, but few are able to find it. The bible says that God had a beginning, therefore He evolved; afterward He created. Read my motto.


Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

Psalm 31:5
Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O Lord God of truth.

Isaiah 65:16
That he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes.

John 14:17
the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

John 15:26
“When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

1 John 4:6
We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.
where can i read ur motto. And God be definition cannot have a beginning. It's like saying the married bachelor. lol.

CherubRam
October 24th, 2015, 01:56 PM
where can i read ur motto. And God be definition cannot have a beginning. It's like saying the married bachelor. lol.

My motto:
Truth is made known by reason of the facts.

God is the Beginning of life. That is what His name Yahwah means, "Life Began."

Alpha First Beginning
Isaiah 44:6
“This is what the Lord says— Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

Isaiah 48:12
“Listen to me, Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last.

Revelation 1:8
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Revelation 21:6
He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life.

Revelation 22:13
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

ananomyx
October 24th, 2015, 03:07 PM
My motto:
Truth is made known by reason of the facts.

God is the Beginning of life. That is what His name Yahwah means, "Life Began."

Alpha First Beginning
Isaiah 44:6
“This is what the Lord says— Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

Isaiah 48:12
“Listen to me, Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last.

Revelation 1:8
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Revelation 21:6
He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life.

Revelation 22:13
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
just because God says He is the beginning doesn't mean that He has a beginning lol.

It's difficult for finite creatures to imagine life free from time and space. It's like fish trying to understand the lives of people on land. Because we're confined to time and space, we tend to impose those limitations upon God

disturbo
October 24th, 2015, 03:24 PM
I agree with this criticism wholeheartedly.

And so do I. I just don't see how you can separate grace, faith, and works. It's not that works saves you. It's that works are the evidence of the grace and faith.

Hedshaker
October 24th, 2015, 03:38 PM
do you not consider the universe popping into and bringing forth space time and matter and all the universal constants from infinite density "supernatural magic" lol

I don't know what caused the universe nor does anyone at this time. Sure some people claim their God-did-it but that doesn't explain how it was done or where God came from. It just moves the question back a stage and replaces a difficult problem with an even greater conundrum. And if that wasn't enough it introduces the supernatural and magic concepts into the equation, which cannot be falsified or tested in any way. Faith doesn't really help much either since it can be used to answer any question. The search for genuine answers ends where faith begins, IMO.

The scientific method on the other hand looks way more promising, especially given that science is still in its infancy compared to say, theology, religion, ancient myths etc.....

....philosophy is ok as a starting point but really needs to be grounded at some point in sound, testable evidence and reason.

It's honest to admit ignorance regarding what is truly unknown but I suspect the hard questions and deeper meaning behind reality, life and everything is probably far stranger than any ones cherished beliefs.

Besides, the natural world is already so very wondrous, who needs magic? I would rather a millisecond of real truth than a whole universe full of fake beliefs. But that's just me :)

Regards.

ananomyx
October 24th, 2015, 07:45 PM
I don't know what caused the universe nor does anyone at this time. Sure some people claim their God-did-it but that doesn't explain how it was done or where God came from. It just moves the question back a stage and replaces a difficult problem with an even greater conundrum. And if that wasn't enough it introduces the supernatural and magic concepts into the equation, which cannot be falsified or tested in any way. Faith doesn't really help much either since it can be used to answer any question. The search for genuine answers ends where faith begins, IMO.

The scientific method on the other hand looks way more promising, especially given that science is still in its infancy compared to say, theology, religion, ancient myths etc.....

....philosophy is ok as a starting point but really needs to be grounded at some point in sound, testable evidence and reason.

It's honest to admit ignorance regarding what is truly unknown but I suspect the hard questions and deeper meaning behind reality, life and everything is probably far stranger than any ones cherished beliefs.

Besides, the natural world is already so very wondrous, who needs magic? I would rather a millisecond of real truth than a whole universe full of fake beliefs. But that's just me :)

Regards.
Yes truth is what we must seek, and this must be based on what makes sense when we take into consideration all aspects of reality, not just the scientific ones, since there are some questions that cant be answered through science, but can be answered by logic and reason.

Hedshaker
October 24th, 2015, 10:03 PM
Yes truth is what we must seek, and this must be based on what makes sense when we take into consideration all aspects of reality, not just the scientific ones, since there are some questions that cant be answered through science, but can be answered by logic and reason.

Logic, reason and evidence!

"What makes sense" is a bit subjective for a genuine "Truth" search since human intuition has been shown to be unreliable. If we put intuition or "what makes sense" before sound, testable evidence then the Sun would still orbit the Earth eg, and believe it or not there are some geocentrists on this board who put cherished beliefs above all else.

Therefore, both logic and reason need at some point to be grounded with testable evidence otherwise they can be manipulated to point where we want them to. Not all logic and reason(s) are equal. And of course, the more extraordinary the claims the more extraordinary should be the evidence. That's logical and reasonable, isn't it?

Also I would put critical thinking and open minded scepticism high on the list where seeking truth is concerned, both of which are at the very heart of the scientific method btw. Have you ever thought of doing a critical examination of Christianity? Of its origins etc? By which I don't mean reading apologetics sites. If not why not? If it genuinely reflects reality then what could possibly be the harm?

To my mind truth seeking isn't about starting with profound beliefs and then torturing the evidence to fit (apologetics). Truth is not found by force fitting reality to religious beliefs and there are a lot of mutually exclusive religious belief systems out there, are there not? They can't all be right but they sure as the Pope is Catholic all be wrong.

And btw, as much as I love science I don't put it on a pedestal to the exclusion of all else. Science is far from perfect. It is often messy and sometimes plain wrong at first. But for all that it just happens to be the most successful endeavour in human history. People are way more likely to survive cancer now than they were only 40 years ago and you can be sure the pastors and the priests and the witch doctors had little to do with it.

http://cafehayek.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/miracle_cartoon.jpg

ananomyx
October 24th, 2015, 10:22 PM
Logic, reason and evidence!

"What makes sense" is a bit subjective for a genuine "Truth" search since human intuition has been shown to be unreliable. If we put intuition or "what makes sense" before sound, testable evidence then the Sun would still orbit the Earth eg, and believe it or not there are some geocentrists on this board who put cherished beliefs above all else.

Therefore, both logic and reason need at some point to be grounded with testable evidence otherwise they can be manipulated to point where we want them to. Not all logic and reason(s) are equal. And of course, the more extraordinary the claims the more extraordinary should be the evidence. That's logical and reasonable, isn't it?

Also I would put critical thinking and open minded scepticism high on the list where seeking truth is concerned, both of which are at the very heart of the scientific method btw. Have you ever thought of doing a critical examination of Christianity? Of its origins etc? By which I don't mean reading apologetics sites. If not why not? If it genuinely reflects reality then what could possibly be the harm?

To my mind truth seeking isn't about starting with profound beliefs and then torturing the evidence to fit (apologetics). Truth is not found by force fitting reality to religious beliefs and there are a lot of mutually exclusive religious belief systems out there, are there not? They can't all be right but they sure as the Pope is Catholic all be wrong.

And btw, as much as I love science I don't put it on a pedestal to the exclusion of all else. Science is far from perfect. It is often messy and sometimes plain wrong at first. But for all that it just happens to be the most successful endeavour in human history. People are way more likely to survive cancer now than they were only 40 years ago and you can be sure the pastors and the priests and the witch doctors had little to do with it.

http://cafehayek.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/miracle_cartoon.jpg

Logic and reason must always be backed with evidence and again you say the more extraordinary a claim the more evidence it requires, a worldview devoid of a Mind doesnt make sense. Life coming from non life isnt a logical conclusion I can draw from the evidence surrounding me. The very idea of being able to know and individually aquire information and knowledge cannot arise from millions and millions of years of non life mixing with non life. Life cannot be created, and even if a scientist could create life it would only prove the point that mind creates mind. And yes, a critical examination of the Christian religion is exactly why I became a believer.

Hedshaker
October 25th, 2015, 04:48 AM
Logic and reason must always be backed with evidence and again you say the more extraordinary a claim the more evidence it requires, a worldview devoid of a Mind doesnt make sense. Life coming from non life isnt a logical conclusion I can draw from the evidence surrounding me. The very idea of being able to know and individually aquire information and knowledge cannot arise from millions and millions of years of non life mixing with non life. Life cannot be created, and even if a scientist could create life it would only prove the point that mind creates mind. And yes, a critical examination of the Christian religion is exactly why I became a believer.

And where do you think this disembodied mind came from exactly? A mind that has presumably always existed (Whatever always or eternity means in this scenario)? A disembodied mind that requires no energy to sustain and drive it, that is without objective substance and leaves no trace of testable evidence for its existence, yet is capable of somehow creating a vast universe and all the natural laws that govern it....... this makes sense to you somehow? And you say you gave up rational scepticism to believe this stuff? Really?? I don't wish to strawman you but this sounds like unadulterated supernatural, Alice in Wonderland style, magic to me. But then again not all atheists are sceptics I guess I've met ones that believe in ghosts and homoeopathy so if you say you came from atheism then I must give you benefit of the doubt.

And here again you base your deep understanding of reality on your intuition, or what makes sense to you. Maybe a little surface scratch delve into quantum physics might help you get a better grasp of the situation. An understanding of the deeper side of reality far surpasses what makes sense to us. We are intellectually but an advance species of ape on a tiny blue speck orbiting a less than average Sun in a nothing-out-of-the- ordinary solar system in an unimaginably vast universe, with brains made of meat. Fortunately we are in the process of outgrowing our superstitious history and developing a method for taking a closer look at what is really going on, and I have to say it's very exciting.

A word of advice if I may. If your aim is to defend your faith to atheists with logic and reason you should be aware that the approach you espouse is nothing new to seasoned sceptics. Your basic premises are based on a form of "presuppositional apologetics" which is a tad insulting to thinking atheists. No one believes that nothing created everything or that the existence of the universe is evidence for a God. Type it into youtube and watch some of the intellectual debates on the subject. Hope that helps?

Edit to add: And of course, since there is life now, it must have emerged from none-life at some point, whether it developed and progressed naturally or was poofed magically by some mythical entity.

Since you appear not to be taking the same effort as I this may be a good time to end the exchange.

All the best.

Cheers.

chrysostom
October 25th, 2015, 05:04 AM
We must always provide a reasonable defense and choose what makes sense logically!

that is reasonable

ananomyx
October 25th, 2015, 09:08 AM
And where do you think this disembodied mind came from exactly? A mind that has presumably always existed (Whatever always or eternity means in this scenario)? A disembodied mind that requires no energy to sustain and drive it, that is without objective substance and leaves no trace of testable evidence for its existence, yet is capable of somehow creating a vast universe and all the natural laws that govern it....... this makes sense to you somehow? And you say you gave up rational scepticism to believe this stuff? Really?? I don't wish to strawman you but this sounds like unadulterated supernatural, Alice in Wonderland style, magic to me. But then again not all atheists are sceptics I guess I've met ones that believe in ghosts and homoeopathy so if you say you came from atheism then I must give you benefit of the doubt.

And here again you base your deep understanding of reality on your intuition, or what makes sense to you. Maybe a little surface scratch delve into quantum physics might help you get a better grasp of the situation. An understanding of the deeper side of reality far surpasses what makes sense to us. We are intellectually but an advance species of ape on a tiny blue speck orbiting a less than average Sun in a nothing-out-of-the- ordinary solar system in an unimaginably vast universe, with brains made of meat. Fortunately we are in the process of outgrowing our superstitious history and developing a method for taking a closer look at what is really going on, and I have to say it's very exciting.

A word of advice if I may. If your aim is to defend your faith to atheists with logic and reason you should be aware that the approach you espouse is nothing new to seasoned sceptics. Your basic premises are based on a form of "presuppositional apologetics" which is a tad insulting to thinking atheists. No one believes that nothing created everything or that the existence of the universe is evidence for a God. Type it into youtube and watch some of the intellectual debates on the subject. Hope that helps?

Edit to add: And of course, since there is life now, it must have emerged from none-life at some point, whether it developed and progressed naturally or was poofed magically by some mythical entity.

Since you appear not to be taking the same effort as I this may be a good time to end the exchange.

All the best.

Cheers.
lol does this make more sense to you...?https://youtu.be/v34QjYPuiEA

ananomyx
October 25th, 2015, 06:34 PM
Again either the universe created itself, or a mind did. Either the universe is eternal, or there is something outside of it which created it. Which makes more sense. Simple as that. Has science observed life coming from non life... nope. Have we figured out statistics regarding a universe popping into existence from infinite density and forming laws which govern it precisely? Yep, and not probable. And chance doesn't even give infinite density a choice to do anything. Chance is just the probability of something happening, it doesnt explain how or why it came to be. SCIENCE points us to an intelligence, not to an eternal universe that just decided to expand, because even then God becomes an impersonal, unintelligible force. Again its what makes more sense, if you want to believe in an eternal universe that somehow can create itself (though its a contradiction for a thing can not be before it is) then I tip my hat to you. If you think the information that is within everything is just a product of impersonal forces, you have way more faith than me. Good Day (:

Hedshaker
October 26th, 2015, 05:56 AM
lol does this make more sense to you...?https://youtu.be/v34QjYPuiEA

Yet again, as with my previous posts, you haven't addressed a single one of my points. And you say you should give honest answers to non believers?

I think the answer to that is plain for all to see......

If you cannot answer you should have the honesty to admit it

chrysostom
October 26th, 2015, 06:08 AM
Yet again, as with my previous posts, you haven't addressed a single one of my points. And you say you should give honest answers to non believers?

I think the answer to that is plain for all to see......

If you cannot answer you should have the honesty to admit it

how do you address someone who doesn't have a reasonable explanation?

they are unreasonable

Hedshaker
October 26th, 2015, 06:20 AM
Again either the universe created itself, or a mind did. Either the universe is eternal, or there is something outside of it which created it. Which makes more sense.

Then please answer the questions previously asked of you. Who or what created your God (always existed is not an answer. If something can always exist then why not the universe?) How did your God go about creating a universe? Was it magic?


Simple as that. Has science observed life coming from non life... nope. Have we figured out statistics regarding a universe popping into existence from infinite density and forming laws which govern it precisely? Yep, and not probable. And chance doesn't even give infinite density a choice to do anything. Chance is just the probability of something happening, it doesnt explain how or why it came to be. SCIENCE points us to an intelligence

Then please point us to the peer reviewed scientific paper that claims "SCIENCE points us to an intelligence".

There is a big difference between real science and your cherished beliefs,


not to an eternal universe that just decided to expand, because even then God becomes an impersonal, unintelligible force. Again its what makes more sense, if you want to believe in an eternal universe that somehow can create itself (though its a contradiction for a thing can not be before it is) then I tip my hat to you. If you think the information that is within everything is just a product of impersonal forces, you have way more faith than me. Good Day (:

Are you familiar with a logical fallacy called..... "Strawman Fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman)"

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent"

I don't know about giving answers "For The Sake Of Truth". There isn't much "Truth" in logical fallacies, is there? Beating your own strawman of what you claim your opponents say is just rank poor. Maybe apologetics just isn't your thing.

Hedshaker
October 26th, 2015, 06:22 AM
how do you address someone who doesn't have a reasonable explanation?

they are unreasonable


What would you know about reasonable? To you reasonable doesn't exist outside of your beliefs.

Hedshaker
October 26th, 2015, 06:27 AM
lol does this make more sense to you...?https://youtu.be/v34QjYPuiEA

What a dreadfully dishonest and edited video. If that sort of dishonesty appeals to you then that clears things up.

No wonder!

CherubRam
October 26th, 2015, 06:59 AM
lol does this make more sense to you...?https://youtu.be/v34QjYPuiEA

Dark Matter is undifferentiated material which has no atomic bonds, this would make it of no particular substance. In other words, it is Nothing. And if you are willing to accept it, it is primordial, and God's store house for creating the universe from "Nothing."

chrysostom
October 26th, 2015, 08:10 AM
What would you know about reasonable?

sensible, rational, logical,

Hedshaker
October 26th, 2015, 08:35 AM
sensible, rational, logical,

How about magical? How sensible, rational, logical, is supernatural magic?

chrysostom
October 26th, 2015, 08:43 AM
How about magical? How sensible, rational, logical, is supernatural magic?

didn't say it was magical

it is

sensible, rational, logical,

popsthebuilder
October 26th, 2015, 08:48 AM
My motto:
Truth is made known by reason of the facts.

God is the Beginning of life. That is what His name Yahwah means, "Life Began."

Alpha First Beginning
Isaiah 44:6
“This is what the Lord says— Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

Isaiah 48:12
“Listen to me, Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last.

Revelation 1:8
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Revelation 21:6
He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life.

Revelation 22:13
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
Just because GOD is the Creator of all and as such the beginning and end of existence as we know it doesn't mean it had a beginning. It is our beginning and end. I totally agree with everything else I have read of yours on this thread.
Peace.

Hedshaker
October 26th, 2015, 10:27 AM
didn't say it was magical

it is

sensible, rational, logical,

Nothing sensible, rational, logical, about the universe being magically poofed by an invisible entity.

If not magic then how was it done?

chrysostom
October 26th, 2015, 11:45 AM
Nothing sensible, rational, logical, about the universe being magically poofed by an invisible entity.

If not magic then how was it done?

so you believe in magic

we believe God did it

Jamie Gigliotti
October 26th, 2015, 12:04 PM
Then please answer the questions previously asked of you. Who or what created your God (always existed is not an answer. If something can always exist then why not the universe?) How did your God go about creating a universe? Was it magic?



Then please point us to the peer reviewed scientific paper that claims "SCIENCE points us to an intelligence".

There is a big difference between real science and your cherished beliefs,



Are you familiar with a logical fallacy called..... "Strawman Fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman)"

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent"

I don't know about giving answers "For The Sake Of Truth". There isn't much "Truth" in logical fallacies, is there? Beating your own strawman of what you claim your opponents say is just rank poor. Maybe apologetics just isn't your thing.

Either cause and effect go on for infinity or it doesn't.
Both positions require faith. Hope in what is not seen.

I have been convinced by my need for love and intimacy, and my decision to accept the truth of the Great I AM through Jesus, that subsequently filled my needs; that He is all that He said He is.

Spiritual experiences can not be proved or disproven, outside of trying them.

If you have the need for love that humans inately have, you can decide to try Him out, or you won't.

But science won't give you any answers beyond the big bang... May God's love and Grace be with you.

Hedshaker
October 26th, 2015, 12:59 PM
Either cause and effect go on for infinity or it doesn't.
Both positions require faith. Hope in what is not seen.

I have been convinced by my need for love and intimacy, and my decision to accept the truth of the Great I AM through Jesus, that subsequently filled my needs; that He is all that He said He is.

Spiritual experiences can not be proved or disproven, outside of trying them.

If you have the need for love that humans inately have, you can decide to try Him out, or you won't.

But science won't give you any answers beyond the big bang... May God's love and Grace be with you.

It's an ancient myth and I don't believe a word of it. Disbelief does not require faith, you just want it to.

Science it the only method that finds real answers.

I don't want your God's love and grace. Are we clear?

patrick jane
October 26th, 2015, 01:03 PM
It's an ancient myth and I don't believe a word of it. Disbelief does not require faith, you just want it to.

Science it the only method that finds real answers.

I don't want your God's love and grace. Are we clear?

That's the amazing thing, you get it anyhoo !!!

Hedshaker
October 26th, 2015, 01:05 PM
so you believe in magic

No that would be you, you just can't bring yourself to admit it.


we believe God did it

Then maybe you can explain how your invisible entity did it without evoking Magic.

Previous question: "If not magic then how was it done?" Got an answer or not?

Hedshaker
October 26th, 2015, 01:08 PM
That's the amazing thing, you get it anyhoo !!!

Alternatively there's nothing actually there. It's only a belief you know?

Ben Masada
October 26th, 2015, 01:49 PM
When did Christianity lose its objectivity to people saying "just having faith". Faith must be reasonable and rational. Thats why I converted from atheism. A lack of knowldege of the scriptures is common in todays day which goes against 1Peter 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready to ALWAYS give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.

We cannot simply tell people to 'just believe'. There is a correct way of viewing reality, let's seek this TRUTH together, but never make the error of telling someone to just take our word for it. Any worldview must make sense as a whole collectively.

Well my friend, "cal hakavod" to you for your conversion from Atheism. Faith is reasonable to stand before contradictions but, there is no rationality in faith. And by the way, it is the irrationality of faith that lives through contradictions and remains untouchable.

I don't know how familiar you are with the NT, but there is a very interesting text by Paul in II Cor. 5:7 that he wanted his followers to walk by faith and not by sight. Since by sight is to walk with understanding, it mean that to walk by faith is to leave the understanding with him aka with his gospel, aka the NT. I am a theist but, my belief in the existence of HaShem is not based on faith but on the Logic of the truth about Him.

ananomyx
October 26th, 2015, 02:12 PM
Well my friend, "cal hakavod" to you for your conversion from Atheism. Faith is reasonable to stand before contradictions but, there is no rationality in faith. And by the way, it is the irrationality of faith that lives through contradictions and remains untouchable.

I don't know how familiar you are with the NT, but there is a very interesting text by Paul in II Cor. 5:7 that he wanted his followers to walk by faith and not by sight. Since by sight is to walk with understanding, it mean that to walk by faith is to leave the understanding with him aka with his gospel, aka the NT. I am a theist but, my belief in the existence of HaShem is not based on faith but on the Logic of the truth about Him.
yes we must all walk by faith regardless of what worldview we have. No one is 100% sure about anything. My point is it requires much more faith to believe in atheism then Christianity. And thats because there is much more evidemce for it., and as believers we are called to always be ready to give a defense for those beliefs(:

chrysostom
October 26th, 2015, 03:00 PM
No that would be you, you just can't bring yourself to admit it.



Then maybe you can explain how your invisible entity did it without evoking Magic.

Previous question: "If not magic then how was it done?" Got an answer or not?

it is reasonable to believe God did it
but
it is not reasonable to expect me to understand how God did it
and
I can see that you are comfortable with being unreasonable

Ben Masada
October 26th, 2015, 03:06 PM
yes we must all walk by faith regardless of what worldview we have. No one is 100% sure about anything. My point is it requires much more faith to believe in atheism then Christianity. And thats because there is much more evidemce for it., and as believers we are called to always be ready to give a defense for those beliefs(:

"No one is 100% sure" about the existence of HaShem! Well my friend, I am; and I do not need faith to be. I can use Logic and, believe it or not, also Physics to prove the existence of HaShem.

Ben Masada
October 26th, 2015, 03:14 PM
it is reasonable to believe God did it
but
it is not reasonable to expect me to understand how God did it
and
I can see that you are comfortable with being unreasonable

Why is it so relevant to know "how" God did it? If it is not enough that He did it, can you provide something else that could have done it if HaShem did not do it? Come on! Give me a satisfactory answer!

Jamie Gigliotti
October 26th, 2015, 08:26 PM
It's an ancient myth and I don't believe a word of it. Disbelief does not require faith, you just want it to.

Science it the only method that finds real answers.

I don't want your God's love and grace. Are we clear?
You ignored the opposing truths I presented. Cause and effect going on for infinity, or one uncaused phenomena.
Most of us here find the infinity stance; 1. Based on no evidence that can not be proven or disproven with science. No evidence of anything before big bang, i.e. based on faith.
2. Ludicrous, it answers nothing.

We have seen enough good and know the dominoes stop somewhere. In the loving arms your heart needs but your pride hates.

Hedshaker
October 27th, 2015, 02:22 AM
it is reasonable to believe God did it
but
it is not reasonable to expect me to understand how God did it

Well if you don't know then your belief is no more than blind faith. Maybe something else did it.


and

I can see that you are comfortable with being unreasonable


Your response shows clearly who is unreasonable

Hedshaker
October 27th, 2015, 02:26 AM
You ignored the opposing truths I presented. Cause and effect going on for infinity, or one uncaused phenomena.
Most of us here find the infinity stance; 1. Based on no evidence that can not be proven or disproven with science. No evidence of anything before big bang, i.e. based on faith.
2. Ludicrous, it answers nothing.

We have seen enough good and know the dominoes stop somewhere. In the loving arms your heart needs but your pride hates.

This is just nonsense. Please find someone else to preach at.

Thanks

gcthomas
October 27th, 2015, 03:25 AM
This is just nonsense. Please find someone else to preach at.

Thanks

It is just a modern version of God of the Gaps, with a lack of knowledge translating into Goddidit.

Hedshaker
October 27th, 2015, 05:32 AM
It is just a modern version of God of the Gaps, with a lack of knowledge translating into Goddidit.

Yep, and the same with chrysostom's post: I have no idea how God did it and I don't accept magic but I believe he did it somehow...... argument from cherished belief.

chrysostom
October 27th, 2015, 06:01 AM
Well if you don't know then your belief is no more than blind faith. Maybe something else did it.




something did do it
it is unreasonable to think it happened all by itself
we call that something God
and
we call you unreasonable
you don't have a reasonable explanation

gcthomas
October 27th, 2015, 06:13 AM
something did do it
it is unreasonable to think it happened all by itself
we call that something God
and
we call you unreasonable
you don't have a reasonable explanation

We'll call that something godless Nature, and we are equal then?

chrysostom
October 27th, 2015, 06:17 AM
We'll call that something godless Nature, and we are equal then?

you still have to explain nature

you are still being unreasonable

gcthomas
October 27th, 2015, 06:26 AM
you still have to explain nature

you are still being unreasonable

Once you have explained God. :up:

chrysostom
October 27th, 2015, 06:28 AM
Once you have explained God. :up:

a necessary uncaused cause

gcthomas
October 27th, 2015, 06:33 AM
Nature is that necessary uncaused cause.

Hedshaker
October 27th, 2015, 06:56 AM
something did do it
it is unreasonable to think it happened all by itself

Neither of us know exactly what did it but it is reasonable to suspect something natural since we have never encountered anything other.


we call that something God
and
we call you unreasonable
you don't have a reasonable explanation

To call it what you want it to be for no other reason than cherished belief is unreasonable. You just don't have the guts to admit it.

chrysostom
October 27th, 2015, 06:58 AM
Nature is that necessary uncaused cause.

nature tells us everything must have a cause
so
you are still being unreasonable

Hedshaker
October 27th, 2015, 06:59 AM
a necessary uncaused cause

How is that any different from magic did it?

Hedshaker
October 27th, 2015, 07:00 AM
nature tells us everything must have a cause
so
you are still being unreasonable

No it doesn't. You are clearly the unreasonable one.

And if everything must have a cause then what caused God?

chrysostom
October 27th, 2015, 07:00 AM
Neither of us know exactly what did it but it is reasonable to suspect something natural since we have never encountered anything other.



To call it what you want it to be for no other reason than cherished belief is unreasonable. You just don't have the guts to admit it.

you must have an uncaused cause

entropy tells us that

Hedshaker
October 27th, 2015, 07:08 AM
you must have an uncaused cause

entropy tells us that

A cause for what exactly? The universe may have had a beginning but no one knows the state of existence before that so no one can possibly know what caused the formation of the universe.

Claiming to know what is unknown is unreasonable QED.

Jamie Gigliotti
October 27th, 2015, 08:49 AM
This is just nonsense. Please find someone else to preach at.

Thanks

Just as finding all the answers in science is nonsense.

chrysostom
October 27th, 2015, 08:50 AM
A cause for what exactly? The universe may have had a beginning but no one knows the state of existence before that so no one can possibly know what caused the formation of the universe.

Claiming to know what is unknown is unreasonable QED.

we don't claim to know
even your accusations are unreasonable

entropy tells us the universe had a beginning
something had to start it
we call that something God

Jamie Gigliotti
October 27th, 2015, 08:55 AM
A cause for what exactly? The universe may have had a beginning but no one knows the state of existence before that so no one can possibly know what caused the formation of the universe.

Claiming to know what is unknown is unreasonable QED.

If you think it's reasonable to think there is an infinity of cause and effect with not primordial uncaused phenomena, then God bless you, but the facts are most think that is unreasonable.

gcthomas
October 27th, 2015, 09:06 AM
we don't claim to know
even your accusations are unreasonable

entropy tells us the universe had a beginning
something had to start it
we call that something God

What does giving an unknown event a name do when you have no understanding of its nature? How does that give you any more understanding than we have?

chrysostom
October 27th, 2015, 09:11 AM
What does giving an unknown event a name do when you have no understanding of its nature? How does that give you any more understanding than we have?

entropy (https://www.google.com/search?q=entropy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) is a scientific term which you should know about

are you pretending not to know about it?

it does support our position

False Prophet
October 27th, 2015, 09:24 AM
You mean "exercising faith" where faith is merely a confession and not a practicing way of life.

gcthomas
October 27th, 2015, 09:40 AM
entropy (https://www.google.com/search?q=entropy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) is a scientific term which you should know about

are you pretending not to know about it?

it does support our position

If the universe started with one on Linde's chaotic inflation bubbles, as it seems it did, then being so compact it is likely to have had very low entropy.

Should I call the inflation bubble God? Not very personal, I know, but if it makes you happy...

Hedshaker
October 27th, 2015, 10:49 AM
we don't claim to know
even your accusations are unreasonable

Pot kettle black!


entropy tells us the universe had a beginning
something had to start it

You aren't paying attention, are you? The universe may well have had a beginning but no one knows the state of existence before then. Therefore no one, including you, can possibly know what caused its formation. But it is reasonable to assume something natural since we have never encountered anything other. QED

Do keep up. Repeating oneself gets tedious quickly.


we call that something God

Maybe a giant toe nail did it, maybe the flying spaghetti monster did it. You can call it what you want but you still don't know. No one does and no one can. That's why it's called unknown.

You are engaging in the
Fallacy of opposition (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_opposition). You are right because you say you are right, therefore anyone in opposition must be wrong by default.

This is a fallacy and is also unreasonable.

You can believe whatever you want but without evidence that does not make your belief any more reasonable than anyone else's suggestion.

Hedshaker
October 27th, 2015, 10:51 AM
Just as finding all the answers in science is nonsense.

Well good luck with the prayer if you ever get seriously sick. Don't want to be bothered with that nasty science, do we? :think:

chrysostom
October 27th, 2015, 10:56 AM
Maybe a giant toe nail did it, maybe the flying spaghetti monster did it.

that would be unreasonable

you continue to come up with what is unreasonable

calling it a necessary uncaused cause is reasonable
and
science proves that

Hedshaker
October 27th, 2015, 11:02 AM
If you think it's reasonable to think there is an infinity of cause and effect with not primordial uncaused phenomena, then God bless you, but the facts are most think that is unreasonable.

Quantum Physics tells us that our intuition is far from reliable when it comes to understanding the deeper side of reality.

And also, please check, I did not say there is an infinity of cause and effects. That would be your straw man, which I do not appreciate. I implied, no one knows the state of existence before the Big Bang.

And I'm betting that if science ever does discover what caused the formation of the universe it will not only be something natural but far stranger than anyone's religious beliefs. Though I seriously doubt it will be in my life time so I don't worry about it.

Hedshaker
October 27th, 2015, 11:12 AM
that would be unreasonable

Why is a giant toe nail or the flying spaghetti monster less reasonable that an invisible disembodied mind?


you continue to come up with what is

Pot kettle black


calling it a necessary uncaused cause is reasonable
and
science proves that

Lol, I'm afraid science is most definitely not on your side.

How come you didn't address the rest of my post. Please address this part if you are not too cowardly:

You are engaging in the
Fallacy of opposition (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_opposition). You are right because you say you are right, therefore anyone in opposition must be wrong by default.


From the link:


A fallacy of opposition occurs when someone assumes that (a) those who disagree with (oppose) you must be wrong and not thinking straight or (b) "I would not believe something that is not true; I believe [this]; therefore, [this] must be true."

Though knowledge of reality cannot be certain, the fallacy of opposition makes people certain that they are privy to the unknowns of the universe. Even those who are the most confident in their opinions can be totally wrong, and their opponents can be right.

The fallacy is essentially circular logic; the argument properly breaks down to "I am right, because I am right."

Carrying this ideology through to its conclusion would make someone totally impervious to the outside world; lower levels of the fallacy of opposition result in a closed mind.

chrysostom
October 27th, 2015, 11:20 AM
Why is a giant toe nail or the flying spaghetti monster less reasonable that an invisible disembodied mind?

there is no reason to believe that
a giant toe nail
or
the flying spaghetti monster
started what we experience
that is nonsense suggested by you
it is unreasonable

entropy is a proven scientific phenomena
it means the universe had a beginning
and
something had to start it
an uncaused cause

gcthomas
October 27th, 2015, 11:26 AM
entropy is a proven scientific phenomena
it means the universe had a beginning
and
something had to start it
an uncaused cause

Didn't you read my post in response to your question about entropy? You don't really seem to understand the role of entropy in cosmology.

Hedshaker
October 27th, 2015, 11:30 AM
there is no reason to believe that
a giant toe nail
or
the flying spaghetti monster
started what we experience
that is nonsense suggested by you
it is unreasonable

So is a disembodied mind or what you call God unreasonable


entropy is a proven scientific phenomena
it means the universe had a beginning
and
something had to start it
an uncaused cause


I have already addressed this and I'm not going to repeat myself for a third time. I have not disputed the universe having a beginning.

Hedshaker
October 27th, 2015, 11:31 AM
Didn't you read my post in response to your question about entropy? You don't really seem to understand the role of entropy in cosmology.

I've noticed how he ignores anything that opposes his view.

Right Divider
October 27th, 2015, 11:32 AM
where can i read ur motto. And God be definition cannot have a beginning. It's like saying the married bachelor. lol.
Folks like him are the reason there is an 'ignore list'.

Jamie Gigliotti
October 27th, 2015, 11:46 AM
Quantum Physics tells us that our intuition is far from reliable when it comes to understanding the deeper side of reality.

And also, please check, I did not say there is an infinity of cause and effects. That would be your straw man, which I do not appreciate. I implied, no one knows the state of existence before the Big Bang.

And I'm betting that if science ever does discover what caused the formation of the universe it will not only be something natural but far stranger than anyone's religious beliefs. Though I seriously doubt it will be in my life time so I don't worry about it.
You sit on the fence. Most take a the stance that there is one uncaused phenomena as most see that as being the most resonable case. You can look at the facts and come to that same conclusion, or you can sit there, wanting physical evidence of God that is Spiritual.

Hedshaker
October 27th, 2015, 11:59 AM
You sit on the fence. Most take a the stance that there is one uncaused phenomena as most see that as being the most resonable case. You can look at the facts and come to that same conclusion, or you can sit there, wanting physical evidence of God that is Spiritual.

Not so much on the fence. I find the idea of a disembodied mind creating the universe too ridiculous to contemplate.

With that we seem to be going round in circles so I'll bid you good day. Feel free to have last word if you must but I'm done with this branch.

Regards

patrick jane
October 27th, 2015, 12:00 PM
Pot kettle black!



You aren't paying attention, are you? The universe may well have had a beginning but no one knows the state of existence before then. Therefore no one, including you, can possibly know what caused its formation. But it is reasonable to assume something natural since we have never encountered anything other. QED

Do keep up. Repeating oneself gets tedious quickly.



Maybe a giant toe nail did it, maybe the flying spaghetti monster did it. You can call it what you want but you still don't know. No one does and no one can. That's why it's called unknown.

You are engaging in the
Fallacy of opposition (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_opposition). You are right because you say you are right, therefore anyone in opposition must be wrong by default.

This is a fallacy and is also unreasonable.

You can believe whatever you want but without evidence that does not make your belief any more reasonable than anyone else's suggestion.

20629

Hedshaker
October 27th, 2015, 01:28 PM
For anyone interested:

?v=9WLQ024pY1U

Some scientist are starting to think the unthinkable. That the Big Bang wasn't the beginning

Ben Masada
October 27th, 2015, 02:21 PM
For anyone interested:

?v=9WLQ024pY1U

Some scientist are starting to think the unthinkable. That the Big Bang wasn't the beginning

I am not surprised at all. BTW, they have never fooled any one into thinking that they work on facts. That's exactly what theories aka guesses are all about. Cosmology is like Evolution. They are always erasing older dates for more recent ones.

I have always taken the big bang as the "Let there be light and there was light of Gen. 1:3." And that happened "In the beginning" when the Primal Cause caused the universe to begin and then followed by expansion. BTW, when Einstein was working on a formula about the Expansion of the universe, he was asked if he indeed believed in HaShem. His answer was that all his life was trying to catch HaShem at His work of creation. Joke or not as atheists wish it was, Einstein connected Expansion with HaShem's work of Creation.

Ben Masada
October 27th, 2015, 02:30 PM
You mean "exercising faith" where faith is merely a confession and not a practicing way of life.

Very good Mr. Prophet! As I can see, there is nothing false about you. Indeed, that's my same view. Faith is a confession and not a practicing way of life.

chrysostom
October 28th, 2015, 06:28 AM
Didn't you read my post in response to your question about entropy? You don't really seem to understand the role of entropy in cosmology.

are you referring to this half baked theory?


If the universe started with one on Linde's chaotic inflation bubbles, as it seems it did, then being so compact it is likely to have had very low entropy.

Should I call the inflation bubble God? Not very personal, I know, but if it makes you happy...

entropy is Second law of thermodynamics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics)

enough said

gcthomas
October 28th, 2015, 08:02 AM
are you referring to this half baked theory?



entropy is Second law of thermodynamics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics)

enough said

Aren't you going to at least try to argue the case for entropy proving the existence of a personal God?

chrysostom
October 28th, 2015, 08:25 AM
Aren't you going to at least try to argue the case for entropy proving the existence of a personal God?

no

that would be unreasonable
and
you don't seem to know what that means

popsthebuilder
October 29th, 2015, 09:20 PM
It's an ancient myth and I don't believe a word of it. Disbelief does not require faith, you just want it to.

Science it the only method that finds real answers.

I don't want your God's love and grace. Are we clear?
Hey. Maybe you aren't aware but Faith in GOD doesn't require a lack of scientific belief. Nor does science refute a watchmaker, or Creator. At a bare minimum, you cannot refute something based on not having experienced it. Science is great. But all is of God, including man and his derived means of observation and knowledge acquisition.

You don't have to want the love of God. You don't have to be hateful either though. You can act like your unique existence and potential as it pertains to all other existence is just a matter of chance, I guess. But that could lead to a very underwhelming existence. Not to mention that even If you think everything came to be from dust, something made that dust. Something cause it to be, and, or caused the things that caused it to be.

No matter what; existence is something. Something cannot come from literally nothing at all. There is a creative force. It is much more than that as well, but now's not the time.
Thanks. Good luck.

popsthebuilder
October 29th, 2015, 09:21 PM
No that would be you, you just can't bring yourself to admit it.



Then maybe you can explain how your invisible entity did it without evoking Magic.

Previous question: "If not magic then how was it done?" Got an answer or not?
What's your answer?

popsthebuilder
October 29th, 2015, 09:29 PM
We'll call that something godless Nature, and we are equal then?
Saying godless nature is saying nature. Again you are saying that nature made nature. So where did it start? What started nature as you understand it?

popsthebuilder
October 29th, 2015, 09:34 PM
A cause for what exactly? The universe may have had a beginning but no one knows the state of existence before that so no one can possibly know what caused the formation of the universe.

Claiming to know what is unknown is unreasonable QED.
To say that a power beyond our understanding is what the known universe came from is logical. That power that is not totally comprehensible that created existence is GOD.

If you wanted you could praise nature as long as you understand that it is of God and not the same as God technically.

popsthebuilder
October 29th, 2015, 10:06 PM
Very good Mr. Prophet! As I can see, there is nothing false about you. Indeed, that's my same view. Faith is a confession and not a practicing way of life.
If you confess faith in something and don't act according then you may not really have too much Faith in that thing.

heir
October 29th, 2015, 10:22 PM
i believe salvation comes from trusting and believing and everything you wrote.
What im referring to is claiming that we can speak to unbelievers about the Word of God and expect them to 'just believe'
I use to be an atheist and that is the worst answer to give someone!
Im trying to explain that as believers saved by grace through faith we are called to be able to defend the scriptures logically and rationally. Same way paul and the apostles did.We should whenever possible, show them by scripture. An open Bible is the best policy. Then they aren't taking your word for it. When a Bible is not at hand, they can be encouraged to write down the scripture references and check out everything discussed with the word of God to see if the things that were said are so. I often carry tracts in my purse to hand out.

ananomyx
October 30th, 2015, 07:48 AM
We should whenever possible, show them by scripture. An open Bible is the best policy. Then they aren't taking your word for it. When a Bible is not at hand, they can be encouraged to write down the scripture references and check out everything discussed with the word of God to see if the things that were said are so. I often carry tracts in my purse to hand out.
yes but we have to remember some people dont view the word of God as inspired by God. They view it as a book written by a bunch of people. Thats how I use to view it. Each individual is somewhere else in their faith. We must meet them were they are at and be able to answer any of their questions. If they dont believe in God then it wouldnt make sense to argue from the scriptures because they dont view them as anything special. We need to be like Paul and meet them where they are at individually. If they dont believe in God then I explain why belief in a God is necessary for there to be a universe. I explain how Universe had a real beginning according to science and explain how there has to be a god, using logic and reason, then I progressively lead them to the Christian view of God, and how it is valid and true using science and history so they are able to see that it is true objectively. That is how I came to faith. I use to laugh when people would talk to me about God without being able to defemd their views with facts outside the bible, it wasnt until someone approached me and was able to truly answer my questions beginning with whether or not truth really existed and moving to whether or not a God existed, then to proving that God is the one that is revealed in the Bible and He is the one who gave us the bible. To underatanding that in order for their to be an objective reference point in morality, we need a guide to show us what good and evil really is (The Bible) But we must be able to answer anyones questions and objections according to 1Peter 3:15, and thats what I love to do, and I encourage others to do likewise There is a website believerationally.com which helps in answering those common quesrions unbelievers have if you want to check it out. And also carry tracts with me for those people who believe already in a God, and are just wondering more about who He is, but before I like explaining the authenticity of the bible, and Gods ability to provide us with One guide (not many), to help us while we are here on earth, if He is really All loving, all powerful, and all knowing. Thanks for your time. (:

chrysostom
October 30th, 2015, 08:10 AM
They view it as a book written by a bunch of people.

translated by a bunch of people
interpreted by a bunch of people
wrested by a bunch of people

unto their own destruction

Hedshaker
October 30th, 2015, 11:25 AM
What's your answer?

That there is no evidence of any kind that the universe was supernaturally created. God-of-the-gaps aside, what caused the Big Bang event is not known or what was the state of existence preceding the Big Bang event. Nothing at all wrong with "don't know" when knowledge is not in evidence.

Hedshaker
October 30th, 2015, 12:49 PM
Hey. Maybe you aren't aware but Faith in GOD doesn't require a lack of scientific belief. Nor does science refute a watchmaker, or Creator. At a bare minimum, you cannot refute something based on not having experienced it.

Straw man. I didn't say any of that. Indeed, you can be a theist and a scientist but science does not concern itself with none-falsifiable claims. Therefore, theist scientists should leave their gods and supernatural beliefs at the lab door.


Science is great. But all is of God, including man and his derived means of observation and knowledge acquisition.


Argument from cherished belief. If that's not a logical fallacy then it should be.


You don't have to want the love of God. You don't have to be hateful either though.

I do not love or hate what I do not believe exists. That would be silly.


You can act like your unique existence and potential as it pertains to all other existence is just a matter of chance, I guess. But that could lead to a very underwhelming existence. Not to mention that even If you think everything came to be from dust, something made that dust. Something cause it to be, and, or caused the things that caused it to be.

Then by that same argument something must have caused God. It's your argument you just make an exception for your God.


No matter what; existence is something. Something cannot come from literally nothing at all.

What, not even God? Your logic is sound, except when it isn't :) The universe may have had a beginning but that doesn't speak for existence itself, about which there is still much to learn. Maybe, just maybe there never was "nothing at all"? Just a thought not a claim.


There is a creative force. It is much more than that as well, but now's not the time.

You are free to believe whatever you wish


Thanks. Good luck.

And good luck to you as well ;)

Regards

Right Divider
October 30th, 2015, 01:17 PM
That there is no evidence of any kind that the universe was supernaturally created.

Said the blind man.


God-of-the-gaps aside, what caused the Big Bang event is not known or what was the state of existence preceding the Big Bang event. Nothing at all wrong with "don't know" when knowledge is not in evidence.
Even the "Big Bang" far from self evident. That is why there are other theories in the arena. All of these "scientific" theories of the origin of the universe have their problems, so to claim these as evidence against the Biblical account is poor "science".

Hedshaker
October 30th, 2015, 01:28 PM
Originally Posted by Hedshaker View Post
That there is no evidence of any kind that the universe was supernaturally created.
Said the blind man.

Got any?


Even the "Big Bang" far from self evident. That is why there are other theories in the arena. All of these "scientific" theories of the origin of the universe have their problems, so to claim these as evidence against the Biblical account is poor "science".

Nor is the "Biblical account" science. Science does not take into account none falsifiable claims.

Right Divider
October 30th, 2015, 01:50 PM
Got any?

Milk?

The evidence is all around you and yet you refuse to see it.

Where would someone begin with you?


Nor is the "Biblical account" science. Science does not take into account none falsifiable claims.
The actual word 'science' simply means knowledge.

The actual operational science that we are all familiar with (the kind that allows us to build computers, for example) can only explain the way things are and NOT how they got to be that way.

Hedshaker
October 30th, 2015, 02:01 PM
Milk?

The evidence is all around you and yet you refuse to see it.

Where would someone begin with you?

Right, so... there is a universe therefore God must have done it? I see..... moving swiftly on-----



The actual word 'science' simply means knowledge.

The actual operational science that we are all familiar with (the kind that allows us to build computers, for example) can only explain the way things are and NOT how they got to be that way.


science
ˈsʌɪəns/
noun
noun: science

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
"the world of science and technology"
synonyms: branch of knowledge, body of knowledge/information/facts, area of study, discipline, field
"the science of criminology"
a particular area of science.
plural noun: sciences
"veterinary science"
a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
"the science of criminology"


To be clear: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Right Divider
October 30th, 2015, 02:10 PM
Right, so... there is a universe therefore God must have done it? I see..... moving swiftly on-----

I said NO such thing. But you want to believe it that way.

It's clear that you've rejected God and you're left with your own self made opinions about stuff.


To be clear: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Yes, that is someone's definition.

I'm sure that you think that science means philosophical materialism since it's all that you have.

Hedshaker
October 30th, 2015, 02:28 PM
I said NO such thing. But you want to believe it that way.

Then what do you mean by "the evidence is all around you?"


It's clear that you've rejected God and you're left with your own self made opinions about stuff.

My self made opinions are as good as yours. Better IMHO since they make no assumptions. I don't know what caused the formation of the universe and neither do you, though, of course, you are free to believe whatever you wish.



Yes, that is someone's definition.

I'm sure that you think that science means philosophical materialism since it's all that you have.


Don't know does not = philosophical materialism. But it's true I reject none falsifiable supernatural claims.

Right Divider
October 30th, 2015, 02:38 PM
Then what do you mean by "the evidence is all around you?"

Please explain the non-material nature of information. Thanks,


My self made opinions are as good as yours. Better IMHO since they make no assumptions. I don't know what caused the formation of the universe and neither do you, though, of course, you are free to believe whatever you wish.

You make assumptions, you just don't even realize it (apparently).


Don't know does not = philosophical materialism. But it's true I reject none falsifiable supernatural claims.
Sure.

Hedshaker
October 30th, 2015, 02:45 PM
Please explain the non-material nature of information. Thanks,

That's a question not an answer. You answer my question first.



You make assumptions, you just don't even realize it (apparently).

What assumptions do I make. Try hard not to straw man anything I have said. Thanks.



Sure.

Thank you. Your honesty is appreciated.

gcthomas
October 30th, 2015, 02:48 PM
Please explain the non-material nature of information.

Could you supply an example of non-material information, please, so that we have something to discuss? I assume you have something specific in mind.

Hedshaker
October 30th, 2015, 02:53 PM
Could you supply an example of non-material information, please, so that we have something to discuss? I assume you have something specific in mind.

I'm suspecting DNA etc but we'll see

gcthomas
October 30th, 2015, 02:57 PM
I'm suspecting DNA etc but we'll see

I'll take a punt, and hazard a guess that if you took away all the material atoms and interatomic bonds, there wouldn't be much in the way of information left immaterially.

:idunno:

Hedshaker
October 30th, 2015, 03:03 PM
I'll take a punt, and hazard a guess that if you took away all the material atoms and interatomic bonds, there wouldn't be much in the way of information left immaterially.

:idunno:

Yep, when it comes right down to it they got nothing. But the evidence is all around you apparently.

Right Divider
October 30th, 2015, 04:10 PM
Could you supply an example of non-material information, please, so that we have something to discuss? I assume you have something specific in mind.
Information itself is non-material.

Right Divider
October 30th, 2015, 04:11 PM
That's a question not an answer. You answer my question first.

Information.


What assumptions do I make. Try hard not to straw man anything I have said. Thanks.

Your assumption seems to be that there is no Creator and no need for one.


Thank you. Your honesty is appreciated.
You're welcome.

gcthomas
October 30th, 2015, 04:46 PM
Information itself is non-material.

And yet you can't give me an example of information that doesn't involve the material. Hmmmm.

Can you define 'information itself' for me in a way that doesn't require material to be involved?

Hedshaker
October 31st, 2015, 06:40 AM
Information.

What use is information without the material medium on which it exists?


Your assumption seems to be that there is no Creator and no need for one.

I haven't seen any evidence for the existence of an invisible, disembodied mind that created the universe, but even if I thought there is one I would be wondering where it came from. I don't buy the always existed apologetic. I'm also sceptical of supernatural claims and ghost tales, the paranormal, astrology, magic, the occult, psychic ability..... I could go on and on. I don't buy a word of it, and I'm not alone by a long chalk. I'm a sceptic and make no apology for it and I don't see why that should bother you. Horses for courses, right?

Right Divider
October 31st, 2015, 12:25 PM
What use is information without the material medium on which it exists?

That does NOT answer the question, now does it?

The point is that information can be transferred to numerous different physical medium, showing that IT (i.e., the information) is NOT an inherent part OF that physical medium.



.

I haven't seen any evidence for the existence of an invisible, disembodied mind that created the universe, but even if I thought there is one I would be wondering where it came from. I don't buy the always existed apologetic. I'm also sceptical of supernatural claims and ghost tales, the paranormal, astrology, magic, the occult, psychic ability..... I could go on and on. I don't buy a word of it, and I'm not alone by a long chalk. I'm a sceptic and make no apology for it and I don't see why that should bother you. Horses for courses, right?
Of course you don't see any evidence! You're rejected it before you start.

gcthomas
October 31st, 2015, 12:47 PM
That does NOT answer the question, now does it?

The point is that information can be transferred to numerous different physical medium, showing that IT (i.e., the information) is NOT an inherent part OF that physical medium.



Of course you don't see any evidence! You're rejected it before you start.

Information is a property of material things. Another property very similar to information is entropy. Would you use the existence of entropy in the same way you try to use information? Or energy, perhaps?

Right Divider
October 31st, 2015, 12:56 PM
Information is a property of material things. Another property very similar to information is entropy. Would you use the existence of entropy in the same way to try to fit information?
Pay close attention.....

Information can be MOVED to ANY kind of physical medium and STILL be the SAME information.

Computers provide a perfect example of this. Computer disks store INFORMATION. You can store the SAME information on many DIFFERENT kinds of storage medium.


A magnetic disk
A solid-state disk
A CD-ROM
A magnetic tape
A paper tape
Paper printouts

The information is EXACTLY the SAME regardless of which PHYSICAL medium you store it ON. This shows that the INFORMATION is NOT an inherent attribute of the physical medium.


Information exists outside of the actual physical medium that it is stored on.

Hedshaker
October 31st, 2015, 02:52 PM
That does NOT answer the question, now does it?

Well the question was a little vague.


The point is that information can be transferred to numerous different physical medium, showing that IT (i.e., the information) is NOT an inherent part OF that physical medium.

Sounds to me like a slant on the Teleological argument which is ok if you find apologetics compelling. Never the less, without some physical medium to convey information to the brain (itself material) I would say it is of no relevance what so ever. Therefore, logically the two are intrinsically linked. At the very least I don't see it as evidence for the supernatural.


Of course you don't see any evidence! You're rejected it before you start.

You're guessing. You don't even know me or how much thought of the subject in had I have undertaken. Just because you have profound beliefs doesn't make them right by default. Such beliefs are not set in stone. People change their mind about them all the time.

I assure you I didn't arrive at my present convictions lightly.

Right Divider
October 31st, 2015, 04:09 PM
Well the question was a little vague.

Sounds to me like a slant on the Teleological argument which is ok if you find apologetics compelling. Never the less, without some physical medium to convey information to the brain (itself material) I would say it is of no relevance what so ever. Therefore, logically the two are intrinsically linked. At the very least I don't see it as evidence for the supernatural.

You're guessing. You don't even know me or how much thought of the subject in had I have undertaken. Just because you have profound beliefs doesn't make them right by default. Such beliefs are not set in stone. People change their mind about them all the time.

I assure you I didn't arrive at my present convictions lightly.
Perhaps you should clearly state your belief system.

My understanding is that you think that everything just happens by random chance. So even the very thoughts you think are just some random accident and therefore not actually directed by any intelligence.

You still cannot get to the point that the INFORMATION ITSELF is immaterial. Since it can be moved from ANY kind of PHYSICAL medium to another. Put another way, information is NOT an attribute of the physical medium that carriers it.

It might also do you well to notice that in all of the computer examples, the information comes from an intelligent being. There is NO known source of information that does NOT come from an intelligent being.

Hedshaker
October 31st, 2015, 05:22 PM
Perhaps you should clearly state your belief system.

I have told you I'm a sceptic. I do not accept the notion of entities and claims that require belief without evidence, such as pixies, fairies, gods, angels, ghosts, demons or anything else dreamed up by the wants and desires of some people. I do not much care for the label atheist since it assumes that theism is the default position and prefixes the letter A to those who do not subscribe. I suspect you feel the same about the many gods out there other than your own.


My understanding is that you think that everything just happens by random chance. So even the very thoughts you think are just some random accident and therefore not actually directed by any intelligence.

Yet you do not give a second thought from where or how this "super" intelligence arose. Always existed explains precisely nothing. It makes perfect sense that intelligence, as we perceive it, emerged and evolved over deep time via natural means. If you think that intelligence preceded matter then the onus is on you to explain how.


You still cannot get to the point that the INFORMATION ITSELF is immaterial. Since it can be moved from ANY kind of PHYSICAL medium to another. Put another way, information is NOT an attribute of the physical medium that carriers it.


We've been over this and over it. There is no method for which information can be recognised but through some physical medium, so the two are inseparable.


It might also do you well to notice that in all of the computer examples, the information comes from an intelligent being. There is NO known source of information that does NOT come from an intelligent being.

So the notion of information originates with people. Is that what you are saying? This would also explain how man created God in his own image.

popsthebuilder
November 2nd, 2015, 02:27 AM
Then what do you mean by "the evidence is all around you?"



My self made opinions are as good as yours. Better IMHO since they make no assumptions. I don't know what caused the formation of the universe and neither do you, though, of course, you are free to believe whatever you wish.





Don't know does not = philosophical materialism. But it's true I reject none falsifiable supernatural claims.
A claim is not supernatural because it is unfalsifiable. Science cannot explain away most things, fewer of which are in cohesive accordance with one another. What is cherished belief again? And while I've got you; is something has the possibility to be a unifying, defining, pertinent part of existence in an all encompassing way then why would science not need to attempt to examine that possibility?

popsthebuilder
November 2nd, 2015, 02:34 AM
It has been proven that chemical changes in the brain are caused by emotion, and effectual in leading to further thought. Basically the inner workings of the mind are in no way strictly a product of a chemical change or the physical, but they can be the cause and lead more complex cognitive function or developed thought, which isn't physical or the product of the physical, technically.

popsthebuilder
November 2nd, 2015, 02:46 AM
Information is a property of material things. Another property very similar to information is entropy. Would you use the existence of entropy in the same way you try to use information? Or energy, perhaps?
Entropy is a claim that things come from chaos right? Or is it the statement that all is in decline. Either way it's grand assumption. Things made by man fall apart, but most other things exhibit a cycle, orbit, and pattern of some sort. And in doing such throw out entropy. All existence but man,as far as we can observe follows a path with order and direction verifiable to an extent mathematically. If that is chaos then what word am I thinking of that means utter disarray and absence of any cohesiveness?

patrick jane
November 27th, 2015, 01:46 PM
the video didn't work hedshaker

gcthomas
November 29th, 2015, 05:54 AM
Entropy is a claim that things come from chaos right?
No, it isn't. You must be thinking of the Laws of Thermodynamics, but you have it backwards if that is the case.

Entropy is a state function that is a measure of the number of specific ways in which a thermodynamic system may be arranged, it is mathematically (if not physically) very similar to Shannon entropy as a measure of information.


Or is it the statement that all is in decline. Either way it's grand assumption. Things made by man fall apart, but most other things exhibit a cycle, orbit, and pattern of some sort. And in doing such throw out entropy. All existence but man,as far as we can observe follows a path with order and direction verifiable to an extent mathematically. If that is chaos then what word am I thinking of that means utter disarray and absence of any cohesiveness?
You are mixing up Thermodynamics Laws with thermodynamic properties, such as entropy.

popsthebuilder
November 29th, 2015, 01:39 PM
No, it isn't. You must be thinking of the Laws of Thermodynamics, but you have it backwards if that is the case.

Entropy is a state function that is a measure of the number of specific ways in which a thermodynamic system may be arranged, it is mathematically (if not physically) very similar to Shannon entropy as a measure of information.


You are mixing up Thermodynamics Laws with thermodynamic properties, such as entropy.
No, I was speaking of the two definitions of entropy as reviewed through Google.

gcthomas
November 29th, 2015, 01:48 PM
No, I was speaking of the two definitions of entropy as reviewed through Google.

Whatever you think you read, you have mixed up distinct ideas.

popsthebuilder
November 29th, 2015, 01:49 PM
en·tro·py

ˈentrəpē/

noun

1.

PHYSICS

a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.

2.

lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.

"a marketplace where entropy reigns supreme"

synonyms:deterioration,degeneration,crumbling,*dec line,degradation,decomposition,breaking down,collapse;*More

popsthebuilder
November 29th, 2015, 01:50 PM
Please clarify

gcthomas
November 29th, 2015, 02:13 PM
Please clarify

Entry 1 is the definition, entry 2 is a sloppy common usage. Your usage was the latter.

popsthebuilder
November 29th, 2015, 02:16 PM
Entry 1 is the definition, entry 2 is a sloppy common usage. Your usage was the latter.
First I stated that it was chaos, which is more in line with the first. Then I went on to ask about the latter.

gcthomas
November 29th, 2015, 02:19 PM
First I stated that it was chaos, which is more in line with the first. Then I went on to ask about the latter.
You said 'comes from chaos' which does not match either entry.
And my first comment answered the questions and clarifies the idea of entropy.

popsthebuilder
November 29th, 2015, 02:21 PM
Sorry, I'm lost. What does this have to do with truth? Did someone say that existence as we know it came from entropy? Cuz that's not logical at all.

gcthomas
November 29th, 2015, 02:36 PM
Sorry, I'm lost.
Yes, you are.


What does this have to do with truth? Did someone say that existence as we know it came from entropy? Cuz that's not logical at all.
I introduced entropy as something mathematically very similar to information that was also conceptually transferable that none would say was immaterial. That was when you butchered the idea of entropy, prompting corrections from me.

Happy to help the confused and bewildered.

popsthebuilder
November 29th, 2015, 09:38 PM
Yes, you are.


I introduced entropy as something mathematically very similar to information that was also conceptually transferable that none would say was immaterial. That was when you butchered the idea of entropy, prompting corrections from me.

Happy to help the confused and bewildered.
That first sentence didn't really make sense to me.
What does any of that have to do with truth? Degradation of the state of existence seems true to me. As do forms of chaos.

gcthomas
November 30th, 2015, 08:21 AM
That first sentence didn't really make sense to me.
What does any of that have to do with truth? Degradation of the state of existence seems true to me. As do forms of chaos.

You joined in on a discussion I was having with other posts, so if you don't understand that is your lookout. I've tried explaining more about what you found difficult, but unless you say specifically what you consider wrong in what I have said then we will get nowhere.

popsthebuilder
November 30th, 2015, 12:38 PM
We'll call that something godless Nature, and we are equal then?
Nature is of God

popsthebuilder
November 30th, 2015, 12:41 PM
Once you have explained God. :up:
Nature is of God as is all else. God is immutable, and infinite and has no start that we can comprehend. Nature and existence are not the same as they are the effect, not the cause.

popsthebuilder
November 30th, 2015, 12:43 PM
Nature is that necessary uncaused cause.
Again; nature and the observable universe indeed shows significant signs of a cause. And nothing can be both the cause and effect of itself within perceivable physical observable existence.

popsthebuilder
November 30th, 2015, 12:44 PM
What does giving an unknown event a name do when you have no understanding of its nature? How does that give you any more understanding than we have?
We have understanding of the parts of its nature that we can fathom. Science actually helps with this, by the will of God.

popsthebuilder
November 30th, 2015, 12:49 PM
If the universe started with one on Linde's chaotic inflation bubbles, as it seems it did, then being so compact it is likely to have had very low entropy.

Should I call the inflation bubble God? Not very personal, I know, but if it makes you happy...
Just because there is a theory about a multiverse that encompasses our universe in some way doesn't mean there isn't a God. And yes, existence is of God regardless of the breadth of our perception of the extent of it.

popsthebuilder
November 30th, 2015, 12:56 PM
Could you supply an example of non-material information, please, so that we have something to discuss? I assume you have something specific in mind.
Knowledge. Though it can be recorded is not of the physical. It has been proven that emotion and thought are not solely effects of chemical balances in the brain, but are to causes of these changes leading to further thought and emotion reciprocally.

popsthebuilder
November 30th, 2015, 12:59 PM
I'll take a punt, and hazard a guess that if you took away all the material atoms and interatomic bonds, there wouldn't be much in the way of information left immaterially.

:idunno:
Antimatter isn't physical. Actually it has been hypothesized that the majority of all existence is in fact not matter and as such not material.

gcthomas
November 30th, 2015, 01:19 PM
Nature is of God
Pure assertion. Why do you consider your assertion to be of higher status than my assertion?


Nature is of God as is all else. God is immutable, and infinite and has no start that we can comprehend. Nature and existence are not the same as they are the effect, not the cause.
If you accept that something can be infinite with no start, then you can conceive that nature is that infinite thing without start. Unnless you wish to blindly assert you are right, again.


Again; nature and the observable universe indeed shows significant signs of a cause. And nothing can be both the cause and effect of itself within perceivable physical observable existence.

Your observations about the contents of the universe do not by necessity apply to the geometry and fabric of the universe, yet you assert that your everyday observations apply to the universe but not God? Sounds like arbitrary pseudo-logic chosen to bolster the argument, but it has little merit.


Knowledge. Though it can be recorded is not of the physical. It has been proven that emotion and thought are not solely effects of chemical balances in the brain, but are to causes of these changes leading to further thought and emotion reciprocally.
No-one claims that emotions are a result of chemical balances - they are the result of the interaction of lots of brain cells and their actions on the body.


Antimatter isn't physical. Actually it has been hypothesized that the majority of all existence is in fact not matter and as such not material.
Antimatter IS physical - it is being used in PET scanners every day in many hospitals, and I use it in class for science demonstrations.

You seem to be making up 'facts' as you go along and simply asserting your correctness using them as a shaky foundation.

popsthebuilder
November 30th, 2015, 01:40 PM
gcthomas,

Not assertion. Everything but man goes about its course; the course set for it by God, without falter or waiver, but man. Everything that we observe came from a creative force. The big bang can easily be seen in the book of Genesis as "Let there be light"

Assertion? Observation.

popsthebuilder
November 30th, 2015, 01:42 PM
How can nature be infinite if we can hypothesize coherently of its start and dilation?

popsthebuilder
November 30th, 2015, 01:44 PM
Pure assertion. Why do you consider your assertion to be of higher status than my assertion?


If you accept that something can be infinite with no start, then you can conceive that nature is that infinite thing without start. Unnless you wish to blindly assert you are right, again.



Your observations about the contents of the universe do not by necessity apply to the geometry and fabric of the universe, yet you assert that your everyday observations apply to the universe but not God? Sounds like arbitrary pseudo-logic chosen to bolster the argument, but it has little merit.


No-one claims that emotions are a result of chemical balances - they are the result of the interaction of lots of brain cells and their actions on the body.


Antimatter IS physical - it is being used in PET scanners every day in many hospitals, and I use it in class for science demonstrations.

You seem to be making up 'facts' as you go along and simply asserting your correctness using them as a shaky foundation.
I meant dark matter.

popsthebuilder
November 30th, 2015, 01:45 PM
How can you say that the laws that bind the observable universe don't too bind the imidiatly observable?

gcthomas
November 30th, 2015, 01:59 PM
gcthomas,

Not assertion. Everything but man goes about its course; the course set for it by God, without falter or waiver, but man. Everything that we observe came from a creative force. The big bang can easily be seen in the book of Genesis as "Let there be light"

Assertion? Observation.
Assertion. 'Let there be light' could mean so many things it probably means very little.


How can nature be infinite if we can hypothesize coherently of its start and dilation?
THIS region had a Big Bang, but that was not the start. What do you think exploded? Nothing?


I meant dark matter.
Matter is material - it is in the name. Perhaps you meant dark energy?


How can you say that the laws that bind the observable universe don't too bind the imidiatly observable?
I can't understand what you are asking here.

popsthebuilder
November 30th, 2015, 02:15 PM
gcthomas,

Read the begining of Genesis. It has many parts that relate to the big bang and the hypothesis of quantinization or quantum mechanics.

Who said nothing exploded? No one said there was nothing be for the theory of the big bang.

Dark matter is a hypothetical kind of matter that cannot be seen with telescopes but accounts for most of the matter in the universe. The existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, on radiation, and on the large-scale structure of the universe. Dark matter has not been detected directly, making it one of the greatest mysteries in modern astrophysics.

Dark matter neither emits nor absorbs light or any other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level. According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the known universe contains 4.9% ordinary (baryonic) matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.[2][3] Thus, dark matter is estimated to constitute 84.54%[note 1] of the total matter in the universe, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of the total mass–energy content of the universe.[4][5][6]

gcthomas
November 30th, 2015, 02:57 PM
gcthomas,

Read the begining of Genesis. It has many parts that relate to the big bang and the hypothesis of quantinization or quantum mechanics.
Only if you shut one eye and squint with the other, holding it upside down and with the lights down low. In bright light, it is just what you'd expect from an unenlightened, bronze age goat herding society.


Who said nothing exploded? No one said there was nothing be for the theory of the big bang.

Dark matter is a hypothetical kind of matter that cannot be seen with telescopes but accounts for most of the matter in the universe. The existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, on radiation, and on the large-scale structure of the universe. Dark matter has not been detected directly, making it one of the greatest mysteries in modern astrophysics.

Dark matter neither emits nor absorbs light or any other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level. According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the known universe contains 4.9% ordinary (baryonic) matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.[2][3] Thus, dark matter is estimated to constitute 84.54%[note 1] of the total matter in the universe, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of the total mass–energy content of the universe.[4][5][6]

I'd recommend that when using Wikipedia for your source, that you either paraphrase it or delete the biblio links that expose your cut'n'paste without attribution habits. Bad form.

popsthebuilder
November 30th, 2015, 07:33 PM
Only if you shut one eye and squint with the other, holding it upside down and with the lights down low. In bright light, it is just what you'd expect from an unenlightened, bronze age goat herding society.



I'd recommend that when using Wikipedia for your source, that you either paraphrase it or delete the biblio links that expose your cut'n'paste without attribution habits. Bad form.
Who cares if I use Wikipedia or not. Way to avoid every point I made.

gcthomas
December 1st, 2015, 04:32 AM
Who cares if I use Wikipedia or not.
I don't care - it is useful as a short-cut to explaining something to someone who needs educating. Just be honest about it. And use it to make a point.


Way to avoid every point I made.
You posted a quote from Wikipedia and neglected to make a point. What was your point?

popsthebuilder
December 1st, 2015, 09:52 AM
I don't care - it is useful as a short-cut to explaining something to someone who needs educating. Just be honest about it. And use it to make a point.


You posted a quote from Wikipedia and neglected to make a point. What was your point?
I wasn't dishonest in any way. And the points I make are still there. I'm not here to play silly games. When you decide to take me seriously as opposed to continually insulting my intelligence and skipping around what I say, let me know.

gcthomas
December 1st, 2015, 10:24 AM
I wasn't dishonest in any way. And the points I make are still there. I'm not here to play silly games. When you decide to take me seriously as opposed to continually insulting my intelligence and skipping around what I say, let me know.

From the ToL Commandments:
6. Thou SHALL NOT post copyrighted material on our website (without prior approval). Plagiarism is also a bannable offense - If you are posting material written by others, make sure to give them credit.

Ben Masada
December 1st, 2015, 04:01 PM
How can nature be infinite if we can hypothesize coherently of its start and dilation?

Nothing that had a beginning can be said of as being infinite. Doesn't the big bang attest to the fact that the universe had a beginning? There!

gcthomas
December 1st, 2015, 04:53 PM
Nothing that had a beginning can be said of as being infinite. Doesn't the big bang attest to the fact that the universe had a beginning? There!

No, it doesn't. But time can behave strangely in general relativity, and it can loop around (the so called time-like loops) so the beginning might have been caused by the end.