|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
How is that possible when you yourself claim that the creator is invisible?
Actually it does. Phat writes:
And we're talking about evidence.
You trust your own rationality and preassumptions. Granted you use evidence when available. Phat writes:
No it isn't. There is no evidence for a creator - and by your own ideas about your creator, there can never be any. The jury is still out on preponderance of evidence regarding a Creator or not.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
That doesn't answer the question. I confirm that I am in a boat from which no creator can be detected. I'm asking how YOU can claim that there is evidence for a creator when YOU also claim that the creator is invisible.
Because the "creator" that you point to is your own conclusions. I am the same way. As I said, we are in the same boat. Phat writes:
That's irrelevant here because you're claiming that there IS evidence.
As I have said before, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Phat writes:
Of course there can be. There can be evidence for anything that exists. Besides...there is no evidence for Loki or a spaghetti monster. Can there ever be any?And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
Paul did:
Who said God was invisible?quote:The author of Job did: quote: ICANT writes:
The universe exists so present the evidence for the origin of the universe.quote: And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
ICANT writes:
Since you have the evidence would you please present it in this thread.quote: ICANT writes:
That is not how assumptions are defined in science. For example, the "assumption" that radioactive decay rates do not change has been tested thoroughly. Please explain how that, 'a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.' is based on any kind of evidence?And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
Unseen and invisible is the same thing.
Had the translators used the primary definition instead of the secondary definition it would have read unseen. ICANT writes:
Apparently Jesus was not telling the truth, since He was visible and His Father was not. If you have seen one you have seen the other. They are one and the same John 10:30 "I and my Father are one."And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
No it isn't. It says nothing about duration.
Yes the cmbr is evidence of a long light period in the beginning. ICANT writes:
God did not "create" darkness. He separated the light from the darkness -i.e. He separated the day from the night. That has to do with the rotation of the earth, not the Big Bang.
But that also supports the day the Lord God Created the heavens and earth in that lasted until He created darkness. ICANT writes:
It is not possible to scientifically support creation "by God" unless you can support scientifically that God exists - and you can't.
But the evidence you presented supports creation by God as good if not better than the BBT. ICANT writes:
That's right. YOU don't get to redefine how science defines assumptions.
Words have meanings and we don't get to redefine them to suit our particular situation. ICANT writes:
No, it's perfectly fine to use different definitions of words in different contexts. For example, the word "unity" has a different meaning in politics than it does in mathematics.
Invent words if necessary. ICANT writes:
If you think it was different, you'd have to show that it was different AND you'd have to show what caused it to change. Without evidence of a change, we can't pretend that there was a change.
Can you even tell me what the radioactive rate of decay was 13.7 billion years ago. ICANT writes:
We can test the aftereffects, if any. We don't have to "be there" when a murder is committed to observe that the body is dead and that there is a bullet-hole in it. You can make all the assumptions you want but you were not there to test it...And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
That doesn't apply in this context. If Jesus and His father are one, you can't have one being invisible and one being unseen.
You are unseen to me as I have never seen you. But are you also invisible? ICANT writes: God to you is unseen by you but that does not make Him invisible. quote: ICANT writes:
Since Jesus was visible and God is not, clearly they are not one and the same. Since they are one and the same they are both visible.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
Light is not the only form of energy.
10 billion K would produce a lot of light. ICANT writes:
I'm not calling God a liar. I'm saying Isaiah was wrong. Darkness is not a "thing" that can be created.
quote: I know you don't believe God exists but I would warn you since it is possible that He does exist you refrain from calling Him a Liar. ICANT writes:
There is no objective evidence that God exists.
There is more real evidence that God exists than the universe began to exist from non existence. ICANT writes:
The root word is irrelevant. When new things come along, we have to use old root words to describe them. New meanings come from old roots. For example, the word "plane" was around long before there were flying vehicles.
ringo writes:
The root word was around along time before modern science came along and started making assumptions. YOU don't get to redefine how science defines assumptions. ICANT writes:
And that is what science does. An assumption in science is not, "a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof," as you claimed in Message 1303. The conclusions from one set of observations become the assumptions for the next set of conclusions; they are all based on fact. You can only test observations and see if they fit your assumptionAnd our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
According to John 1:18, "No man hath seen God at any time...." Either Moses was wrong or John was wrong. God the Father is in heaven and has been seen only by Moses. There is no such thing as a "spiritual manifestation" and your god doesn't exist either. Whether you believe in Him or not does not make any difference.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
ICANT writes:
At 10 billion degrees K it would be well beyond the visible spectrum.
I thought it took energy to produce light.Light is photons and electromagnetic waves. At 10 billion degrees K the soup that existed one billionth of a second after T=0 would have been pure energy. Pure energy would produce bright light. ICANT writes:
It wasn't.
If the entire universe was bathed in this bright light... ICANT writes:
Even ultraviolet light, which is just barely beyond the visible spectrum, is dark - because, guess why - it's beyond the visible spectrum.
... where would darkness come from? ICANT writes:
On the contrary, everything was dark until it cooled down enough to be visible.
But darkness did not exist in the beginning. ICANT writes:
Who said there was objective evidence for that?
Do you mean objective evidence like the objective evidence for the universe not existing at T=0 and yet existing 1 billionth of a second later? Two branes colliding and creating the universe. An instanton beginning to exist and producing the present universe.
ICANT writes:
The difference is that the Big Bang is the best explanation for the objective evidence that we do have. God is not.
There is no objective evidence for any of those, making them equal in objective evidence for their existence. ICANT writes:
You're being dishonest. I bet you have used the word yourself exactly in that context.
But a plane is not a flying vehicle. ICANT writes:
If you were honestly looking for answers, you could have googled that yourself. For example:
Where do you find that definition of assumption?quote: ICANT writes:
That's why the Big Bang is still a hypothesis. It is not (yet) a thoroughly tested theory, like evolution or the age of the earth, until the assumptions can be confirmed.
It is assumed the universe existed 1 billionth of a second after T=0.what fact is that assumption based on. You said they are all based on fact. ICANT writes:
Dictionary definitions are the first layer of understanding, not the last. Argumentum ad dictionarium is a fallacy used by schoolboys. Adults should have grown out of it. Here are some dictionary definitions of assumption.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
You do it all the time under the umbrella of belief. Why is it different when I do it?
You have no place to make absolute statements which you cannot prove. Phat writes:
No you haven't. You have experienced "something" that you interpret as "spiritual manifestations" - most likely because some pastor has told you that's what it was.
I have experienced spiritual manifestations.... Phat writes:
You have it backwards. YOU can define "spiritual manifestation" in such a way as to make your interpretation true. But different people will define it in different ways: ghosts, demons, gods, etc.
... so it means your definition has to be different for your statement to be true. Phat writes:
How can a belief be "wrong", unless it actually defies objective evidence? My belief is just as valid as yours - AND it's supported by a complete lack of evidence for yours. Your absolute belief in such a definition is quite simply WRONG...And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
That statement has no value. You could say the same thing about the Tooth Fairy.
My God does exist "Whether you believe in Him or not does not make any difference." ICANT writes:
If there was a god, he would be more likely to judge you on your behaviour than on someting as petty as belief. One day you will meet Him face to face and give an account of your life and make your excuses for not believing in Him.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
I'm saying that Genesis talks about visible light - i.e. the difference between day and night. The authors of Genesis could not "see" the cmbr and had no way of knowing that it existed.
Are you saying the Big Bang Theory is wrong and we cannot see the cmbr? ICANT writes:
The difference is that we are actively looking for objective evidence, so yes, we do require objective evidence and we don't call something a theory until there is objective evidence to support it. Believers, on the other hand, just make excuses for not having any objective evidence for their beliefs.
You said, "There is no objective evidence that God exists." I was just asking did you require the same kind of objective evidence that was available for those events for the existence of God. ICANT writes:
No. As I said, those events are not considered as fact until they are supported by evidence.
But you seem to require more evidence for God than those events. ICANT writes:
No. The Big Bang is the best EXPLANATION for the evidence that we do have. Of course we have evidence for the Big Bang - the cmbr for example.
But you just said above there was no objective evidence supporting the Big Bang. ICANT writes:
No, I'm not. I'm arguing that assumptions are tested and shown to be valid.
But you are not arguing that assumption have to be proven but that they are fact. ICANT writes:
Google.
Where can I find that the Big Bang is a hypothesis rather than the Standard Theory? ICANT writes:
As I said, it's the first layer of understanding. People like you, who regard the dictionary as the be-all and end-all repository of knowlege, never get beyond the first layer.
If dictionaries do not give us the definitions of words why do we have dictionaries? ICANT writes:
Of course not. But people working in specialized areas can fine-tune definitions to fit their needs.
Can anybody make up any kind of definition that suites their belief system?quote:Be sure not to use yours for anything else. And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
They were your words, in Message 1333. You do realize the words "Whether you believe in Him or not does not make any difference." were your words don't you?And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
We didn't discover photons beyond the visible spectrum until quite recently. When the Bible was written, light was either sunlight or moonlight or lamplight, all definitely visible. If you want to be picky about the definitions of Hebrew words, you can't impose modern definitions on them.
I thought light was light especially if it was made by a 10 billion degree kelvin temperature ball of quark soup. ICANT writes:
And he might have come down on a skateboard but we have no reason to think that he did.
ringo writes:
Moses might have known what it was when he came down off the mountain the second time they had to cover his head because nobody could look at his head as it shown so bright. The authors of Genesis could not "see" the cmbr and had no way of knowing that it existed. ICANT writes:
I don't demand anything. I conclude that since you don't show any objective evidence, you don't have any. And I conclude that since you're not actively looking for objective evidence, you don't think there is any.
Yet you demand that I present objective evidence for Gods existence. ICANT writes:
Been there; done that: cmbr, redshift, etc.
So give me any objective evidence available to prove the universe began to exist like science so called say it did. ICANT writes:
If you want to know what I'm saying, you could try paying attention to what I'm saying instead of making it up in your own head. I didn't say that the universe doesn't exist. I said that the event of its "beginning" is not fully understood - yet. If a baseball appears in your back yard, you don't question its existence just because you don't know exactly how it got there.
ringo writes:
Are you saying the universe don't exist? ... those events are not considered as fact until they are supported by evidence. ICANT writes:
No, I'm inclined to keep Hawking's idea and scrap yours.
I have read where Hawking said if his instanton popped into existence it would produce a universe just like the one we live in.They are known to pop into existence and then disappear in a vacuum. The problem with that is since there would be no existence prior to the universe existing there would be no place for a vacuum to exist for the instanton to pop into existence in. Scrap that idea. ICANT writes:
I didn't ask you to google the first instance you could find of the Big Bang being called a "theory". Try being honest and googling for it being called a hypothesis. ringo writes:
I did and this is what I found. ICANT writes:
Google. Where can I find that the Big Bang is a hypothesis rather than the Standard Theory? Edited by ringo, : capitAlization. Edited by ringo, : moAr capitalization - @#$%ing sHift keY!And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024