Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   There Has Forever Been A Universe
Jesuslover153
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 24 (35143)
03-24-2003 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
03-15-2003 6:03 PM


I am hoping to have a reply on my criticism of your theory Buzsaw...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 03-15-2003 6:03 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 24 (35260)
03-25-2003 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Buzsaw
03-22-2003 7:38 PM


quote:
It appears to me that you are giving the universe the respect that God deserves here, I believe that the universe itself cannot contain God.
My 60's Webster Dictionary defines the word "universe" as including everything that exists. I believe that God exists, sitting on a thing called a throne, which exists, in a place/location called Heaven which is located in the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Buzsaw, posted 03-22-2003 7:38 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 03-26-2003 5:08 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 22 by Jesuslover153, posted 03-26-2003 10:40 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 24 (35261)
03-25-2003 9:06 PM


JL, my appologies for not addressing all your responses. My time here is limited. IMO, your interpretation of Genesis one fails to factor in the "before" problem as well as other problems. Mine, imo, is less faith based and makes more sense when you really take time to think about it. Biblical faith is works best with a sensible foundation to support it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Jesuslover153, posted 03-26-2003 10:46 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 19 of 24 (35294)
03-26-2003 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Buzsaw
03-22-2003 7:14 PM


I strongly suspect that the video is impressive to people who are not knowledgeable in Geology or physics.
I also suspect that they leave out a great deal of current Geological evidence which contradicts their claims.
I repeat. The ICR is not a reliable source of scientific information because their stated mission is not open scientific inquiry, but to convert people to their religious view.
To do science, one must go out, look at the evidence in nature, and then determine what happened.
The Creationists aren't doing science when they hold the preconceived notion that the Flood is true, before they ever look at the evidence.
What they do is hold this preconceived notion, gotten from a religious text, then look for evidence to make it look as though this preferred outcome is how it happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Buzsaw, posted 03-22-2003 7:14 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 20 of 24 (35295)
03-26-2003 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Buzsaw
03-22-2003 7:38 PM


quote:
Imo, young earth creationists who are claiming that the entirety of the observed universe began a mere six milleniums ago or so, are presenting a huge credibility problem which pictures their eternal majesty of the universe in a very small and temporal framework.
This is exactly why Creationism is not science.
There is no agreement among all of the different flavors of Creationism because the basis for it is scriptural interpretation, not evidence.
Revelation is not testable; anyone's interpretation of their scriptures has just as much validity as anyone else's.
If there is no way to test the theories, if they are all just adhered to dogmatically, then it is just a belief system and nothing more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Buzsaw, posted 03-22-2003 7:38 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 21 of 24 (35354)
03-26-2003 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Buzsaw
03-25-2003 8:49 PM


buzsaw writes:
I believe that God exists, sitting on a thing called a throne, which exists, in a place/location called Heaven which is located in the universe.
Do you then postulate that, given a spacecraft of sufficient speed and life-support capacity, you could travel to heaven? Most people would consider this an idea out of Jules Verne. It may also be contrary to your theology.
It's probably most accuracte to define the universe as the set of all points it is possible for matter to travel to. In such a case, heaven exists outside of the universe (if it exists at all).
It would be possible to have volumes outside the universe if the universe is finite but unbounded in three dimensions, in the way a sphere is unbounded in two dimensions. A sphere's boundary is only in the third dimension; likewise, the universe's boundary would be in the fourth dimension. (Which would not have to be time.) Although this is more of a geometric conjecture than a scientific hypothesis. One could detect the net curvature of space via the paths of light (ala General Relativity) but of course one could not conjecture as to what would lay outside the universe.
(BTW, as a linguist I find "dictionary" definitions rarely germaine to discussion because dictionaries only reflect how we use words, not what they "really" mean, if a word can be said to "really" mean anything at all.)
------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 03-25-2003 8:49 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Jesuslover153
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 24 (35376)
03-26-2003 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Buzsaw
03-25-2003 8:49 PM


Well than lets do a study of heaven...
What is your take on the 3rd heaven mentioned by Paul?
And what about all the instances of God not being able to be contained by even the heavens of heavens? and than to think that he is in our hearts? this seams to be a paradox to me..
To lay down my faith position as it is today, I believe that all of creation can be tested in a scientific manner (being observable, and testable, when the right test is designed and put to action), the only non-testable thing is God himself... but I believe that through looking at the word of God and than searching in life, with unbiased approach, than one will come to find that he does indeed exist and is able to explain all things in his own way.
Since having got into this discussion with you there has been one thought developing in my mind... Science says a thing must be observable, so than we aught to look to God for his observation concerning the creation and eternity past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 03-25-2003 8:49 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Jesuslover153
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 24 (35377)
03-26-2003 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Buzsaw
03-25-2003 9:06 PM


I wonder how so it is that 'yours' makes more sense when we think about it?
and I would be cautious at passing faith off as being a non-sensical thing... I ask whether you know what faith truelly means?
Have you modernised the essence of faith?
This is what I see faith as being... you sit down on a chair, and never question the chair until one day it breaks or falls, than for a time you are cautious but you still sit, till once again your are sitting with no caution... or like leaning against a wall, you trust the wall and never question until it falls or you fall through it, and than only for a time do you question and test the wall to see but quickly your faith in walls is back in place.
This is why I believe that we will be justified before God by faith alone....
The plus I see us as both having is that God is creator, the details of creation are just that details... but I certainly caution us both to put our own knowledge above Gods.. so I invite you to pray with me that God perfect our knowledge and make us as one mind in him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Buzsaw, posted 03-25-2003 9:06 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
bambooguy
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 24 (36236)
04-04-2003 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
03-15-2003 6:03 PM


buzsaw,
I think you've missed the poeticness of this passage. Do you remember the old tale about a man never crossing the same river twice. He doesn't because there is time in between the past, present, and the future (yesterday, today, and forever). The river has changed and he has changed, so they never meet again.
But God doesn't change, because he's outside of time. He created time, he doesn't experience it. He's at the past, present, and future right now. He's at the day Lincoln was born and the day that he died, and every other time all at the same time. This may be difficult to understand. Here's an analogy:
If you were driving in a car down a road, you would see the road in little chunks of time. If you were in a balloon flying above the road you would see all the road at the same instant. God's in the balloon while we're in the car. We experience the road as connected fragments, but he experiences the whole road. But it's a little more confusing.
The Christian view of God is that he recently became a man, in time on a particular day. So does this make God eternally living in time? Ah, what a question. Theologians would love it. Suffice to say that this is a difficult question. But an answer isn't essential to a Christian view of the world.
Evan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 03-15-2003 6:03 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024