Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 94 (8832 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2018 6:22 PM
191 online now:
Coragyps, Modulous (AdminModulous), ooh-child (3 members, 188 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeepaManjusha
Post Volume:
Total: 830,609 Year: 5,432/29,783 Month: 1,364/1,467 Week: 250/311 Day: 30/89 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
2021
...
25Next
Author Topic:   Who Made God?
Taq
Member
Posts: 7421
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 271 of 369 (826790)
01-09-2018 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Phat
01-08-2018 1:11 AM


Re: Jonathan Sarfati, of AIG, accepts General Relitivity (and AIG itself).
Phat writes:

It seems to me that you simply think that any unevidenced belief is nonsense.

What's the difference between nonsense and an unevidenced belief?

Percy claims no belief, but allows that some do believe and have every right to claim whatever they want as miraculous. Perhaps he is trying to understand why believers think the way they do.

You, on the other hand, wave away any belief as nonsense precisely because it is unevidenced and you wont allow the term miracle to be part of your vocabulary. You would wait your whole life for evidence without believing in anything.

I also allow for other people to believe in nonsense and declare whatever they want as miraculous no matter how nonsensical it is. I don't see why allowing people to believe in nonsense somehow comes with the requirement that I have to believe in the same nonsense. Can you explain?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Phat, posted 01-08-2018 1:11 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Phat, posted 01-09-2018 5:39 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7421
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 272 of 369 (826792)
01-09-2018 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by ICANT
01-09-2018 1:49 PM


Re: God, Cosmology, & EvC
ICANT writes:

What would you think of a glass-blower if he could produce the material the glass is made of, out of nothing. Simply by speaking it into existence, would you then think he was God.

What would you think if the only way someone could support their argument was by inventing fantasies like the one above?

When you see a magician levitate someone in mid air, do you think they are deities or do you look for the wires?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by ICANT, posted 01-09-2018 1:49 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1103
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


(3)
Message 273 of 369 (826793)
01-09-2018 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by ICANT
01-09-2018 10:04 AM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
I don't have time to look it up at the moment. But if memory serves me right Stephen Hawking said that in a vacuum these particles will appear and when they do they will create a universe just like ours.

Virtual particles popping in and out of the vacuum is a common popularization. It's also incorrect, empty space is just empty. It's sort of a popularization that occurred at an unfortunate time. Early in quantum field theory's development it looked like it predicted particles popping in and out of the vacuum, and this hit old science magazines, but it actually doesn't.

That is not the way it is treated at EvC.

Maybe, but it's a subtle issue to grasp. I don't personally recall people supporting Hawking's instanton theory, but I may have missed the threads.

If you mean that the Big Bang explains the origins of the universe or stuff like "Time began in the big bang", which aren't true, I'm not surprised people think this. Nearly every popular account says so. The two semesters I taught graduate cosmology the students actually couldn't believe that the Big Bang doesn't explain the origin of the universe, as all media and books say so again and again. I think this is a failing of the physics community, we are content to have programs explain half-formed notions from the 1940s instead of modern physics, which genuinely I think is clearer and easier to grasp.

Edited by Son Goku, : *not surprised


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by ICANT, posted 01-09-2018 10:04 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by 1.61803, posted 01-09-2018 5:50 PM Son Goku has not yet responded
 Message 282 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2018 4:29 PM Son Goku has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30161
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 274 of 369 (826796)
01-09-2018 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Stile
01-09-2018 3:11 PM


Re: God, Cosmology, & EvC
I often sit right next to enough energy to destroy a city yet do not find it impressive. In fact I just drank all that energy and will now pour another glass of water.

ICANT's fantasy of reality is almost as silly as his fantasy of Christianity or of the Bible.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Stile, posted 01-09-2018 3:11 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Phat, posted 01-10-2018 12:32 PM jar has responded
 Message 280 by Phat, posted 01-10-2018 1:54 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10672
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 275 of 369 (826797)
01-09-2018 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Taq
01-09-2018 3:49 PM


Re: Jonathan Sarfati, of AIG, accepts General Relitivity (and AIG itself).
OK I see your point.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Taq, posted 01-09-2018 3:49 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2754
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 276 of 369 (826798)
01-09-2018 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Son Goku
01-09-2018 4:23 PM


Re: Eternal power (energy)

Son Goku writes:

If you mean that the Big Bang explains the origins of the universe or stuff like "Time began in the big bang", which aren't true,

My intital reaction was: First I was like.....then I was all like....and then remembered all the times I was wrong....and then I was like shhhhhiit.


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Son Goku, posted 01-09-2018 4:23 PM Son Goku has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1108
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 277 of 369 (826802)
01-10-2018 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by ICANT
01-09-2018 12:03 AM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
ICANT, I have been pretty busy lately. My only time seems to be on the scripture issues (which is for the better, since the scientific stuff is over most of our heads), and I was in a hurry in my last post.

I will try to respond quickly.

I said:

quote:

Yahweh actually can only really mean I AM or I WILL BE.

NOT IN PAST (probably not though Hebrew is tricky with tenses as there are none in the Bible, mostly)


You responded:

quote:

I don't know where you come from with the I AM other than from the translation of the KJV or one of the other versions.

You sure did not get it from the definition of , which is 1.to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out.

You are right about Biblical Hebrew tenses. They don't exist period, there is no mostly to it.
Verbs are either perfect, completed action or imperfect, ongoing action.


I suspect the font won't work, but your above post had the Hebrew HYH which essentially means he is or he was (the infinitive "to be" isn't the actual form that is shown in the lexicons, which always have the third person qal perfect masculine singular BUT THE DEFINITION ALWAYS GIVES THE INFINITIVE)

The translation for ehyeh (or 'HYH) is totally related to the translation for YHWH. (Exodus 3:14 ehyeh asher ehyeh and Exodus 6:3 YHWH).

Exodus 3:14 in the King James.

quote:

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you

This is the first person use (by God!) of the IMPERFECT for HYH.

Then the Exodus 6:3 YHWH use

quote:

And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them

This is the third person IMPERFECT which means HE IS or HE WILL BE

Now, what about the imperfect use of the perfect HYH?

Here is what a very conservative scholar and leading Hebrew linguist has to say.

quote:

The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries (Book 2)
Exodus 1-18
William H.C. Propp
Yale University Press (October 5, 1999)
p.204

The imperfect of hyh always refers to the future.


(And it is not a settled issue that Biblical Hebrew lacks straight out tenses.)

See this Wikipedia link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am

You then quoted my comment about the Hebrew grammar showing that God was not eternal in THE PAST.

quote:

Yahweh, according to Hebrew grammar, backs this cosmology up!

You said:

quote:

I don't know what you draw that conclusion from.
Could you give me the Hebrew text that supports your conclusion?

The YHWH word (see above).

NEXT ISSUE

NOW PAUL'S WORDS

quote:

The meaning of 'soma' is: 1.the body both of men or animals.
So in the text body would be referring to the people who made up the church.

'pleroma' means 1.that which is (has been) filled

'arche' means: 1.beginning, origin

So what is all that about and where did it come from?


But, surely, you know that "Paul" (assuming that he wrote this book) uses technical terms.

Pleroma means a collective soul ( the Gnostics used it to refer to eminations of the Demiurge).

Scholars (like the one I quoted) used to think Gnosis existed in the first century and saw Paul responding to views that are documented in the later in the second century. Now it seems that he was responding to regular Christians.

Pleroma means this according to ancient sources.

quote:

the Lord and Maker of all (ton Holon) being both All (ta panta ) and One, ... for the Pleroma of all things is One and in One

Go to www.google.com

TA PANTA

TON HOLON

PLEROMA

STOICHEIA

(you made an issue of the word

quote:

I don't care to discuss someone else's commentary but I would discuss your commentary.

This commentary did not rule out Paul holding a collective soul type of belief.

See the above quotes.

My comments?

Paul simply took the collective soul views that the Christians had and then made CHRIST the combined part of it all.

You then said:

quote:

σϋνίστήμι
This is the Greek word that is translated consist in Col. 1:17.
The word means: 1.to place together, to set in the same place,to bring or band together. I don't know where you got your translation from.
If you click the circle beside the peek button you can see how I made the Greek letters appear in the post instead of a mess. They will not copy and paste, neither will Hebrew. HTML code is required.

I got the word PLEROMA from verse 19

(here is part of my quote, from the evangelical commentary, which my words in place of the Greek font)

quote:

The term body (SOMA) as used here is not an independent development of the analogy that Paul had used in I Corinthians, but a new approach to the whole concept of the church. In all probability the apostle takes over in a technical term of the Colossian "philosophy," as he certainly does with PLEROMA ("fullness") in the next verse. We cannot tell precisely how the Colossian Gnostics used SOMA in the framework of their cosmic theory; whatever it meant to them, Paul affirms that it is realized in the church. ....

quote:

1:17

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

1:18

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

1:19

For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;


1:19 is the collective soul part.

And this PLEROMA is the same term used in 2:9, which is used to twist Paul into sayings that (also in 2:9-10) TES THEOTETOS ( "of the Godhead" or "of deity") somehow is a pro-Trinitarian verse.

It is not pro Trinitarian!

It is using the collective soul to connect God to (well?) the collective soul.

Paul did not teach that the God YHWH (and the "Demiurge" was just a Christian use that took a Greek name for what was otherwise YHWH, though Plato's name for God would have been seen as evil by the same Gnostic Christians and infact the same God just like Theos was seen as YHWH) was evil.

But later Gnostics and Marcion did.

But Paul also has had his views twisted, and it is due to ignorance of the Greek words. Paul meant PLEROMA just as it was used then. There is no evidence he modified it, but he simply was making a point about Christ being the sum total of the whole, and a manifestation of the whole.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by ICANT, posted 01-09-2018 12:03 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10672
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


(1)
Message 278 of 369 (826807)
01-10-2018 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by jar
01-09-2018 5:25 PM


Re: God, Cosmology, & EvC
jar writes:

I often sit right next to enough energy to destroy a city yet do not find it impressive.

Thats human nature. Lets take the ocean. Many people do not find it impressive unltil it arrives in the form of a Tsunami and wipes out their house and family before their eyes. I CANT is impressed with God, even while likely denying that he made the God that he worships up. You laugh at his ideas and declare them simplistic, dogmatic, and as laughable to you as the God of Calvinism. All that he is trying to do is describe what he believes to be GOD (The reality) to others. You yourself introduced us to that term. Remember how you taught me the construct?
jar writes:

GOD, if GOD exists is something beyond whatever we might be able to describe.

Which is logical, but dont simply make fun of folk who dare to describe a God that they believe can be described. You can challenge their ideas by describing what you see as a bigger GOD than they describe, and then the argument resumes. Simply putting people down, asking them if they ever read the Bible, and laughing at their ideas does not help add anything to any conversation that we engage in here at EvC. Remember when you described GOD as you understood Him(Her It)

jar writes:

So asking if GOD is good is a limiting question. GOD is good, and I believe I've pointed out some reasons that I believe that to be true.

But GOD is also terrible.

Does GOD also embody evil? Yes.

GOD is complete.

GOD is all.

GOD is Yin and Yang.

GOD was and is and will be.

Is GOD worthy of respect, acknowledgment or praise? IMHO, yes.

And fear and awe.

And love and honor.

GOD Is!

I could make fun of you for saying that GOD is all, accusing you of pantheism.
or Yin and Yang. Both your GOD and I CANTS God can be supported Biblically. So why the jeering and condescending tones towards I CANT and his ideas?

I CANT has a point in that we have been unable to observe the origins of the universe, thus why not invoke GOD rather than simply ENERGY? One is as likely as the other.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by jar, posted 01-09-2018 5:25 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Stile, posted 01-10-2018 1:12 PM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 281 by jar, posted 01-10-2018 3:20 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3143
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 279 of 369 (826808)
01-10-2018 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Phat
01-10-2018 12:32 PM


Re: God, Cosmology, & EvC
Phat writes:

I CANT has a point in that we have been unable to observe the origins of the universe, thus why not invoke GOD rather than simply ENERGY?

I think it's more like one is invoking GOD where the other is not invoking GOD.

Invoking GOD
-has been tried before
-when tried before, has never come up with a verifiable answer
-when tried before, has usually been replaced with a not-invoking-GOD answer that is verifiable and offers additional knowledge to the situation
-has never been able to firmly and adequately answer any question about how anything works
-sure, could be right this one time... but is there any reason to think it would be?

Not invoking GOD
-has been tried before
-when tried before, sometimes comes up with a verifiable answer that offers additional knowledge to the situation
-has an excellent track record for providing firm, adequate answers about how things actually work
-not guaranteed to be right, but if it does learn something, that something is guaranteed to be useful

One is as likely as the other.

I don't see how.
I can understand how they are both possible answers to a situation where "I don't know" accurately described our knowledge.
However, "as likely as the other" seems to be woefully ignorant of each idea's track record.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Phat, posted 01-10-2018 12:32 PM Phat has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10672
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 280 of 369 (826810)
01-10-2018 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by jar
01-09-2018 5:25 PM


A Kinder, Gentler jar
Reminder: The topic is Who Made God?

Phat writes:

In one respect, invoking the name of God is simply giving a personality to the energy involved in what came before the Big Bang. That is hardly a simple discussion.

jar writes:

And that is as meaningless as anything ICANT posts.

Really now. You need to try a bit harder to rediscover the inner kindness and rationale which I know that you have.

Lets review I CANT and jars interactions in this thread and judge for ourselves the point attempting to be made.

I CANT writes:

I am a fundamentalist and I do not believe our universe came from another universe. That is string theory.
I do not believe anything that exists came from nothing. (...)Science has not and can not discover the origin of the universe.
There is no scientific data until T=10-43 s.
This is due to a mathematical problem, General Relativity breaks down and can not give any information.

All I see so far is that I CANT is stating his belief. He made not be well schooled in science, nor am I, but his premise is basic: At a certain point in the distant past, right at the time of the Big Bang, no observation as to the cause of the event was possible to determine. Perhaps I CANTs only potential error is in declaring that Science never will figure it out. We don't know that.

The exchange continues:

I CANT writes:

I have stated on this website that anything that could cause the universe and everything in it to begin to exist would be God, no matter what it was.

It would have to be eternal in existence.
It would have to be Omnipotence, Omnipresence, and Omniscience.

Thus, I CANT is stating his belief. He disagrees with Hawking saying that God is not necessary to create the universe. Fair enough.
You have said similar things, jar. From How Do We Know God is Good?
jar, responding to Gilgamesh writes:

There is yet another record that many of us believe GOD left for us. It's the universe around us. It is amazing, awesome, wonderous. Certainly something good in all.(...)I have never said that you must or even should believe in GOD. That is something between the individual and GOD himself. You and many others deny GOD, but if you agree that "We do have the capability of making things better" and if you actually work towards making that a reality, I believe that it is the denied GOD working through you.

But that is my personal belief. I do not ask or expect you to agree with me.

As I have said in other threads, IMHO what GOD wants is for us to live up to two rather simple commandments, Love GOD and the two-parter, love others as you love yourself. If you live just the second of the two commandments, if you love yourself and if you love others equally, you would be loving GOD. You will be doing good.

See? You are capable of being empathetic towards others who believe differently than you do. You seem to lump Biblical Creationists into one vile category...they are different. I CANT is not Falwell, Bakker, Hinn, or Faith. From what I see, he helps those in his congregation. Just because he doesn't see God the way you do is no reason to ridicule him.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by jar, posted 01-09-2018 5:25 PM jar has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30161
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 281 of 369 (826814)
01-10-2018 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Phat
01-10-2018 12:32 PM


Re: God, Cosmology, & EvC
Phat writes:

I CANT has a point in that we have been unable to observe the origins of the universe, thus why not invoke GOD rather than simply ENERGY? One is as likely as the other.

But no one speaking on the science and reality side has invoked simply energy. BUT, and it is a big BUT, there is evidence that energy exists, can be tested, quantified, identified and detected.

There is no evidence of GOD.

One is far more likely than the other since one can be tested, quantified, identified and detected with the other cannot be tested, quantified, identified or detected.

I do not make fun of peoples beliefs but I do reserve the right to point out when their descriptions claim to be describing reality and are simply misrepresentations.

The origin of the universe is also irrelevant to the question of Who Made God and changing the topic is a classic tactic to avoid addressing tough questions.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Phat, posted 01-10-2018 12:32 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5787
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 282 of 369 (826816)
01-10-2018 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Son Goku
01-09-2018 4:23 PM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
Hi Son,

Son writes:

Virtual particles popping in and out of the vacuum is a common popularization. It's also incorrect, empty space is just empty. It's sort of a popularization that occurred at an unfortunate time. Early in quantum field theory's development it looked like it predicted particles popping in and out of the vacuum, and this hit old science magazines, but it actually doesn't.

I have spent the last couple of days trying to find Professor Hawkings paper and lecture on the instanton that we have discussed in the past. None of the links work as he has changed his website and removed several articles including the one on the instanton. I have a copy of them on a hard drive somewhere but that will take a lot of time to find.

Since he has discarded his earlier instanton claims I see no need in trying to find them. He put out a paper in 2016 Phantom of the Hartle-Hawking instanton: connecting inflation with dark energy.

He has many more assumptions in this paper than he had in the previous 2 papers on the instanton. I have not studied it enough to conclude anything. I have not been able to comprehend where he might have for the origin of the instanton in this paper. I will study it in more detail when the time is available.

But since he discarded his earlier views I will do the same. It doesn't do any good to beat a dead horse as Nator's avatar of old.

Son writes:

Maybe, but it's a subtle issue to grasp. I don't personally recall people supporting Hawking's instanton theory, but I may have missed the threads.

In one of my threads you and cavediver was discussing Stephen Hawkings no boundary universe that came from the instanton. In his comments he said he skipped the BBT and went straight to the no boundary universe. If you don't remember that I will look it up when I get time.

Son writes:

If you mean that the Big Bang explains the origins of the universe or stuff like "Time began in the big bang", which aren't true,

I have never advocated that the BBT explained the origins of the universe. I been told too many times that the BBT tries to explain what happened beginning at T=10-43 s.

My problem with that is that there are certain assumptions that must be accepted (believed happened) in order for the BBT to describe what happened after T=10-43 s.

Son writes:


community, we are content to have programs explain half-formed notions from the 1940s instead of modern physics, which genuinely I think is clearer and easier to grasp.

Some facts would be great to base things on that assumptions.
Do you have any?

The Bible gives me information that has been proven by observations today. The Bible predicted the earth was round, there was a period of uniform light in the universe, and the earth was placed in the heavens and her path was set.

It made all those predictions over 2,400 year ago.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Son Goku, posted 01-09-2018 4:23 PM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Son Goku, posted 01-10-2018 6:20 PM ICANT has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10481
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 283 of 369 (826817)
01-10-2018 4:47 PM


This is not a miscellaneous topic
Can someone explain why this belongs in Coffee House. Did someone sneak by having an OP vetted properly?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up theyre not going to shoot me. This is what Im thinking theyre not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Phat, posted 01-10-2018 6:04 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply
 Message 285 by xongsmith, posted 01-10-2018 6:07 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10672
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 284 of 369 (826818)
01-10-2018 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by NoNukes
01-10-2018 4:47 PM


Re: This is not a miscellaneous topic
My fault. I moved it from Book Nook where it already existed as a topic. I was going to start a new one but for whatever reason back then I abused my power. Please forgive my error in judgment.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by NoNukes, posted 01-10-2018 4:47 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1840
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009


Message 285 of 369 (826819)
01-10-2018 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by NoNukes
01-10-2018 4:47 PM


Re: This is not a miscellaneous topic
Agree. Should be in Faith and Belief, maybe?

http://www.evcforum.net/Threads.php?control=tf&f=6


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by NoNukes, posted 01-10-2018 4:47 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
2021
...
25Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018