Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8795 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-18-2017 7:43 PM
337 online now:
Coragyps, halibut, jar, JonF, Percy (Admin) (5 members, 332 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 820,821 Year: 25,427/21,208 Month: 1,054/2,338 Week: 175/450 Day: 47/52 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
111213Next
Author Topic:   Faith vs Science
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5100
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 136 of 186 (789026)
08-09-2016 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Phat
08-09-2016 2:37 PM


Re: Faith in common.
Phat writes:

Science is NOT the origen, nor is Stephen Hawking anywhere near brilliant enough to come up with a hypothesis that explains origin. If he were that smart he would be able to walk...indeed fly.

Science has only just started on this problem. Science itself in no more than 250 years old. Your side has been making stuff up for several thousand of years and most of its nonsense has already been debunked.

150 years ago the origin of species was one such problem, now we know that the Christian beliefs held so certainly by all Christians - and for that matter Jews and Muslims too - were wrong. So eventually all but the seriously puddled accepted that evolution 'created' the species - even that bastion of Christian conservativeness the Catholic church.

Science WILL create life from chemicals at some point, possibly in the next decade. That will push 'origin' arguments back to questions about who or what made chemicals instead of life. Religion is finding its areas of movement very restricted, it's being pushed further and further into a corner. Pretty soon now all that will be left as a religious explanation for creation will be theism and eventually some physicist with the brain the size of a god will crack that one too.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Phat, posted 08-09-2016 2:37 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Phat, posted 08-09-2016 4:54 PM Tangle has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4001
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 137 of 186 (789027)
08-09-2016 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by GDR
08-09-2016 1:50 PM


Re: Faith in common.
Not really. I'm suggesting that there are those that use science as a method of disproving the existence not of a specific "God" but of the idea that there is a prime mover(s) that is responsible for the fact that we exist.

To me it sounds like you are dancing. Who is the 'prime mover'? Surely you have a theory.

If your complaint is that some use science as weapon against your religion, maybe that is true, but in general, it is the science itself that most of us are discussing. Chemicals kill a lot of people but we don't blame chemistry.

I have faith in science and the scientific method.

I do not.

I accept it as the best explanation for the way things are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by GDR, posted 08-09-2016 1:50 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by GDR, posted 08-09-2016 3:26 PM edge has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4303
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 138 of 186 (789029)
08-09-2016 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by edge
08-09-2016 3:02 PM


Re: Faith in common.
Edge writes:

To me it sounds like you are dancing. Who is the 'prime mover'? Surely you have a theory.

Sure, I'm Christian, but that isn't the point of the discussion.

edge writes:

If your complaint is that some use science as weapon against your religion, maybe that is true, but in general, it is the science itself that most of us are discussing. Chemicals kill a lot of people but we don't blame chemistry.

The shoe is probably more on the other foot that some use religion to argue with science. As far as my faith is concerned there is no conflict. My concern is, and I'll use evolution as an example. is that there are those that conclude from the fact that as we can see how evolution works naturally we have done away with any notion that there was an intelligence that is responsible for the process, whether or not that intelligence intervenes in the process.

edge writes:

I do not.
I accept it as the best explanation for the way things are.


That is a better way of putting it.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by edge, posted 08-09-2016 3:02 PM edge has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 9890
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 139 of 186 (789035)
08-09-2016 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Tangle
08-09-2016 3:01 PM


Re: Faith in common.
Tangle writes:

Science WILL create life from chemicals at some point, possibly in the next decade. That will push 'origin' arguments back to questions about who or what made chemicals instead of life. Religion is finding its areas of movement very restricted, it's being pushed further and further into a corner. Pretty soon now all that will be left as a religious explanation for creation will be theism and eventually some physicist with the brain the size of a god will crack that one too.

Psalms 49:3 writes:

My mouth will speak words of wisdom; the meditation of my heart will give you understanding.

Were I a betting man, I would take a heart over a brain any day of the week.
I also realize that scriptures don't impress you--bear with me as I also do with your presumptions.

Psalms 111:10 writes:

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding. To him belongs eternal praise.


Proverbs 1:7 writes:

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Indeed, fools think they are wise. Often those who are in fact wise are also humble. They know their source.

Proverbs 4:6 writes:

Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she will watch over you.

1 Corinthians 1:18 writes:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Notice Stephen Hawking...

As brilliant as he is, he questions the universe yet does not question God. Any good scientist wouldn't rule the possibility of God out now would they?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Tangle, posted 08-09-2016 3:01 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Tanypteryx, posted 08-09-2016 6:07 PM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 141 by Tangle, posted 08-09-2016 6:21 PM Phat has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1586
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 140 of 186 (789039)
08-09-2016 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Phat
08-09-2016 4:54 PM


Re: Faith in common.
Notice Stephen Hawking...

As brilliant as he is, he questions the universe yet does not question God. Any good scientist wouldn't rule the possibility of God out now would they?

No, but when they are doing science there is no need to factor God in or out.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Phat, posted 08-09-2016 4:54 PM Phat has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5100
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 141 of 186 (789040)
08-09-2016 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Phat
08-09-2016 4:54 PM


Re: Faith in common.
Phat writes:

Were I a betting man, I would take a heart over a brain any day of the week.

It's a good job you're not then Phat because otherwise you'd lose an awful lot of money. Hearts aren't terribly good at thinking.

I also realize that scriptures don't impress you--bear with me as I also do with your presumptions.

You quote chunks of biblical bollox at me? In a science thread? Do you really expect me to even read it?

As brilliant as he is, he questions the universe yet does not question God.

You guys are terribly impressed with celebrity. I really don't care who questions or doesn't question god. It's only facts that matter.

Any good scientist wouldn't rule the possibility of God out now would they?

Yes they would - with their 'heart' ie without rational argument. Lots do - they're human but they don't let that get in the way of their science.

You've already heard a million times that science's conclusions are tentative. There's nothing to debate here, everybody agrees.

What we would disagree on is the likelihood of those tentative conclusions being wrong. By tentative we don't mean 50:50, to be accepted as significant science requires a minimum of p=.05, and if it's a contentious result it needs verification by third parties and by a number of different methods. And that's social sciences - physics has much stronger requirements. Properly veryfied conclusions are hard to totally overturn, they're far more usually modified or improved.

So this argument that you can't dismiss 'goddidit' is totally spurious. A scientist is forced to agree simply because the methodologies of science necessitates it. Does it actually think that god did do it?

Here's a clue, part of the process of submitting a scientific paper is to include its limitations - say what hasn't been tested that might be an alternate answer to your conclusion or not produce as generalisable result.

I have yet to read one that said god might have done it.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Phat, posted 08-09-2016 4:54 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Phat, posted 08-14-2016 6:32 AM Tangle has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13723
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(2)
Message 142 of 186 (789084)
08-10-2016 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Phat
08-09-2016 2:37 PM


Re: Faith in common.
Phat writes:

Science is NOT the origen, nor is Stephen Hawking anywhere near brilliant enough to come up with a hypothesis that explains origin.


So why are a bunch of Bronze Age sheep herders more brilliant?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Phat, posted 08-09-2016 2:37 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Phat, posted 08-11-2016 8:36 PM ringo has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9890
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 143 of 186 (789229)
08-11-2016 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by ringo
08-10-2016 11:58 AM


Re: Faith in common.
God Is Not Dead

The Goat Herders were not so vain as to rely on their own imagination nor intelligence. By Faith they knew God.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by ringo, posted 08-10-2016 11:58 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by GDR, posted 08-11-2016 9:03 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 146 by ringo, posted 08-12-2016 11:39 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4303
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 144 of 186 (789233)
08-11-2016 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Phat
08-11-2016 8:36 PM


Re: Faith in common.
Phat writes:

The Goat Herders were not so vain as to rely on their own imagination nor intelligence. By Faith they knew God.

First off I just want to say thanks for your contributions to this site and the admin work you do.

Just a thought on your post. Isn't there a difference between knowing God and knowing the details of how He brought us into existence. For that matter isn't there a difference between knowing that God is good and loving and knowing in detail what the future holds in store.

As I've said to Faith a number of times, the faith is Christianity not Biblianity. Too often, IMHO, the church has made a false idol out of the Bible. The Bible is the "word" of God. Jesus is the "Word" of God. Read through the first chap. of the Gospel of John.

The Bible is a collection of books as you well know. We have to read different authors within the context of the world they lived in and know that we cam learn from the times the get it right as well as the times they got it wrong. Although many try, you can't square the loving forgiving God we see in Jesus to the vengeful God that is sometimes portrayed in the OT. It can't be done. That does not mean that we can't find the loving God in the pages of the OT as well. If we take the Bible as inerrant we wind up with a god that calls us to love our neighbour and our enemy, but sometimes wants us to slaughter them, men women and children. Does that make sense to you?

Just a thought.

AbE P.S. Your link didn't work.

Edited by GDR, : No reason given.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Phat, posted 08-11-2016 8:36 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Tangle, posted 08-12-2016 4:46 AM GDR has not yet responded
 Message 148 by Faith, posted 08-14-2016 3:30 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5100
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 145 of 186 (789252)
08-12-2016 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by GDR
08-11-2016 9:03 PM


Re: Faith in common.
GDR writes:

If we take the Bible as inerrant we wind up with a god that calls us to love our neighbour and our enemy, but sometimes wants us to slaughter them, men women and children. Does that make sense to you?

Well it does to me. Just as you can't answer why all life depends on organisms eating other creating competetive, painful and short lives for everything, you can't even reconcile the stories in your books. And it's not as though they're minor problems - genocide vs love thy neighbour. The reason of course, is that people made up the stories to explain their beliefs and justify their actions at the time. God had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

But.....cough..... This is a science forum, take your biblical bollox elsewhere ;-)


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by GDR, posted 08-11-2016 9:03 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13723
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 146 of 186 (789268)
08-12-2016 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Phat
08-11-2016 8:36 PM


Re: Faith in common.
Phat writes:

The Goat Herders were not so vain as to rely on their own imagination nor intelligence. By Faith they knew God.


They imagined God and had faith in their imaginations.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Phat, posted 08-11-2016 8:36 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9890
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 147 of 186 (789376)
08-14-2016 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Tangle
08-09-2016 6:21 PM


Re: Faith in common.
Start with this. And yes...any good scientist reviews all of the evidence. Response to Stephen Hawking
You quote chunks of biblical bollox at me? In a science thread? Do you really expect me to even read it?
Are you really so narrow minded as to ignore any challenges to your world view? You are not dead yet, Tangle.
I really don't care who questions or doesn't question god. It's only facts that matter.
So examine all of the evidence before concluding your worldview. Not everyone who is a believer is an idiot. Some are far wiser than you or I. And yes, this is a science forum. Deal with it. We are studying human psychology.
Here's a clue, part of the process of submitting a scientific paper is to include its limitations - say what hasn't been tested that might be an alternate answer to your conclusion or not produce as generalisable result.
Have you read all of them?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Tangle, posted 08-09-2016 6:21 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Tangle, posted 08-14-2016 5:19 PM Phat has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26448
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 148 of 186 (789406)
08-14-2016 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by GDR
08-11-2016 9:03 PM


Vengeful God
\

Although many try, you can't square the loving forgiving God we see in Jesus to the vengeful God that is sometimes portrayed in the OT. It can't be done. That does not mean that we can't find the loving God in the pages of the OT as well.

What do you do with the NT passages that describe Jesus as that vengeful God?

(Oh I'm sure I know: you tell yourself they were written by people who hold opinions you don't like so therefore they must be false. Oh well.)

2 Thessalonians 1:6-9 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

Revelation 14:9-10 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by GDR, posted 08-11-2016 9:03 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5100
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 149 of 186 (789432)
08-14-2016 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Phat
08-14-2016 6:32 AM


Re: Faith in common.
Phat writes:

Start with this. And yes...any good scientist reviews all of the evidence. Response to Stephen Hawking

I've read what Hawking says several times thanks.

The problem is that neither you nor I understand it. Nor does all but a handful of people in the world. We have to take his maths at his word, which I do to some extent. But they're mathematical hypothesises - important but not conclusive until confirmed empirically. We'll have to wait - possibly forever - as some of his and his colleague's imaginings may be impossible to confirm. At the level of big physics these things approach belief.

Are you really so narrow minded as to ignore any challenges to your world view? You are not dead yet, Tangle.

Oh give over Phat. There's absolutely nothing new to be found in the bible. It's been exactly the same for 2,000 years. I studied it for years and believed in it the same way you do now. It was my world view - been there, done that.

So examine all of the evidence before concluding your worldview.

See above.

Not everyone who is a believer is an idiot.

No, but most of their beliefs are idiotic.

Some are far wiser than you or I. And yes, this is a science forum. Deal with it. We are studying human psychology.

The mistake that you and your chums continually make is to assume that by seemingly being clever, other people can know something they don't about this god thing. No-one, that's no-one, has any special knowledge of god; not those on my side - Dawkins, Hawking etc or those on yours - the pope and that charleton favourite of GDR's, C S Lewis. They're all as clueless as you and I.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Phat, posted 08-14-2016 6:32 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Phat, posted 08-17-2016 9:07 AM Tangle has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9890
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 150 of 186 (789629)
08-17-2016 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Tangle
08-14-2016 5:19 PM


The Word Of The Day:Imagine
Tangle,referring to Stephen Hawking writes:

We'll have to wait - possibly forever - as some of his and his colleague's imaginings may be impossible to confirm. At the level of big physics these things approach belief.

Note what you just said. Their imaginings.... Lets do a word study on the word imagine, shall we?
Tangle writes:

Oh give over Phat. There's absolutely nothing new to be found in the bible. It's been exactly the same for 2,000 years. I studied it for years and believed in it the same way you do now. It was my world view - been there, done that.

Since you did study the book for years, you will appreciate this word study then. Please correct me if I seem too clever...since the purpose of this study is to show the intelligence of the authors rather than myself.

For this study, we will use the KJV since it lines up with Strongs Concordance.
Imagine

quote:
TO THINK, DEVISE
chashab OT:2803, "to think, devise, purpose, esteem, count, imagine, impute." This word appears 123 times in the Old Testament, and it implies any mental process involved in planning or conceiving.

Chashab can be translated as "devise" in association with the sense of "to think and reckon." A gihed person of God "devises" excellent works in gold and other choice objects Ex 35:35. The word may deal with evil, as when Haman "devised" an evil plot against the Jewish people Est 8:3. David issued his prayer against those who "devise" evil toward him as a servant of the Lord Ps 35:4, and the scoundrel "devises" perverse things in Prov 16:30. Other verses indicating an immoral intent behind the action of "devising" are Jer 18:11,18; Ezek 11:2.
The word may mean "think." Some "thought" to do away with David by sending him against the Philistines 1 Sam 18:25; Judah "thought" Tamar to be a harlot Gen 38:15; and Eli "thought" Hannah was drunk 1 Sam 1:13. God repented of the evil concerning the judgment he "thought" to bring upon Israel Jer 18:8. Those who fear the Lord may also "think" upon His name Mal 3:16.

Chashab may be rendered "to purpose" or "esteem." God asked Job if he could tame the Leviathan, who "...esteemeth him as straw, and brass as rotten wood" Job 41:27. A classic usage of "esteem" appears in Isa 53:3-4: "He [the Messiah] is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs.... Yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted." Some uses of "to purpose" have a malevolent intent. David's enemies have "purpose" to overthrow him Ps 140:4. God repented of the evil He "purposed" to do concerning Israel Jer 26:3, and perhaps the people will repent when they hear the evil God has "purposed" against the nation Jer 36:3. On the other hand, God "purposes" evil against the land of the Chaldeans in His judgment after using them for the purification of His people, Israel Jer 50:45

Translated as "count," the word is used in a number of ways. It had a commercial connotation, as when land was being redeemed and the price was established, based on the value of crops until the next year of Jubilee: "Then let him count the years of the sale thereof, and restore the overplus..." Lev 25:27. The same idea concerns the provisions for the Levites when Israel offered their gifts to the Lord Num 18:30. "Count" may imply "to be thought or reckoned." Bildad declared to Job, "Wherefore are we counted as beasts, and reputed vile in your sight?" Job 18:3. Those who seek to live for the Lord are "counted" as sheep for the slaughter Ps 44:22. The foolish person, when he holds his peace, is "counted" as wise Prov 17:28. A theological emphasis exists in God's reward of Abraham, when the patriarch believed God and His word: "And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness" Gen 15:6.

Most uses of chashab translated as "imagine" bear an evil connotation. Job chided his friends: "Do ye imagine to reprove words, and the speeches of one that is desperate..." Job 6:26; David's enemies "imagined" a mischievous device Ps 21:11; and Nahum complained of those who "imagine" evil against the Lord Nah 1:11.

Other unique translations of chashab occur. In order to approach God, Asaph had to remember and "consider" the days of old Ps 77:5. God had a controversy with Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, because he "conceived" a plan against Him and His people Jer 49:30. The prophet Amos cites people who "invent" instruments of music and enjoy it Amos 6:5. Huram of Tyre sent a man to help Solomon in the building of the temple, who knew how to "find out" all the works of art-- i. e., he could work in various metals and fabrics to design a work of beauty 2 Chron 2:14. Joseph had to remind his brethren that he did not seek to do them harm because they had sold him into slavery, since God "meant" it for the good of the preservation of Jacob's sons Gen 50:20.


Quite simply I am attempting to show that when men imagined something, it was usually their own vain imagination. There were times, however, where their imagination was of God...chiefly because it was His creative Spirit...His imagination rather than the limited vain imagination of fallible humans.

Edited by Phat, : clarification


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Tangle, posted 08-14-2016 5:19 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Tangle, posted 08-17-2016 10:08 AM Phat has responded
 Message 155 by ringo, posted 08-18-2016 12:55 PM Phat has responded

  
Prev1
...
89
10
111213Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017