5 Questions...

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Actually:

​

a)I don't have much faith in man as you put it. We are nasty malicious buggers for the most part....

​

---

That is why I don't trust the knowledge conceived by man alone.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Resting,

​

Some observations & comments.....

​

"So you presume to tell me that because science can not answer it now, that they will one day?"

​

You presume to tell me it won't?

​

"Nowadays scientist say that volcanos' erupt due to some natural force. But that doesn't mean God doesn't use that natural force to make the volcano erupt and to kill those people. All science discovers is the force that God uses to perform with."

​

Surely that would be "supernatural" force, not natural, if God made the Volcano erupt. There is no evidence WHATSOEVER supporting divine intervention in volcanic activity. Lets leave volcanoes to geologists, you only do a disservice to your argument here.

​

"Even if everything science has observed in the universe can be contributed by a pure scientific factor that doesn't mean God didn't do it."

​

But why, WHY, would you assume He did?

​

"Ah, my friend but science can not work like that. Science can not abide by the excuse that it just is. That will never be justifiable by any scientific law now, or anyone to ever be invented, created, or discovered. The only law of something just existing is God's law for himself. For if you could believe that science could just exist, than how can you not believe in God? "

​

My friend, the 1st law of thermodynamics says matter/energy can neither be created or destroyed, ergo, in one form or another it DID exist forever. So it would seem something existing forever IS defined by science & not God after all.

​

As for the last part, a methodological way of thinking can hardly be compared with a belief in God.

​

"The Scottish Liturgy uses the formulation "He is the Word existing beyond Time, both source and final purpose." This preserves the infinite nature of God which, by use of time-scoped words you were inadvertently mitigating."

​

With respect, how do they know that? Secondly, what is Gods purpose?

​

"I understand what you're saying. You are saying that you think God doesn't exist because all of science's observations of the universe indicate scientific explanations. I am offering up two answers to that. 1) Man has not observed everything he thinks he has. 2) What man has observed has been inline with science because God did his manipulation in a scientific way. So therefore is unnoticed by man."

​

Why, does God make volcanoes go off in such obvious fashion (to you), & is then so secretive when it suits you?. See your earlier post.

​

"I would just like Athiest to seriously think about the theories that scientist conjure up to deny the existence of God."

​

Such as?

​

"In any event it in no way limits God to potentionally express himself in an unscientific way."

​

How would God express himself in an unscientific way? This is an important one, I need a reply to this question if you reply to no other.

​

"I believe God has a hand in everything from the littlest to the smallest detail in everything. So I believe that God has a hand in everything regarding the universe. The hand of course could be one that corresponds to scientist reasoning or could be one that doesn't. I believe that sometimes it doesn't and in that event scientist make guesses on pure conjecture."

​

That would be you making guesses on pure conjecture! Why does science produce such predictable results on Newtonian motion, for example. If what you say is correct, then observations where objects accelerate whilst no force was applied would be made, because God wanted it "over there". NOTHING like this has been observed. What you are describing are things that we can't predict, like Aunty Mable getting run over. What your statement doesn't take into account is where science can predict things with absolute accuracy. Where does your God go then? It seems Scientific Laboratories are places God can't enter. You only have an argument where there are unknown variables.

​

"Just ask yourself how it can be possible for something to just exist and further things to spring up from it. It's not. So therefor whatever it was that started everything had to be considered impossible by science. God is the only thing can just exist. I don't care what kind of singular big bang theory they can up with there always has to be something that put it there."

​

1st Law Of Thermodynamics again, I'm afraid. Things can just exist. Pre-Big Bang, still there.....

​

The statement that you "don't care what kind of singular big bang theory they can up with", really puts it in a nutshell better than I ever could. This says to any reader that your mind is CLOSED.

​

---

I understand what you are saying about the law of light. Imagine a straight line, on either end is an arrow pointing opposite of each other. This line represents time and how it extents beyond limit in either direction, both the past and the present. You are saying that sense light can not be created or destroyed that it would mean that before anything else was originated there was always light and that extended into the past with time indefinitely. This is still limited thinking. There would have to be a reason for time itself to exist and for it to contain light.You can accuse me of being closed minded if you wish, I do not pretend to be politically correct.Now for your question on how God could express himself in an unscientific way. God is not limited. I believe he does do things that we observe and science can not explain. That's when scientist sometimes take a good guess and in some cases purely use their imagination to invent theories. But as far as an indisputable proof of himself, I believe he is reserving that for the end. Maybe to test man's faith, or maybe for another reason he will reveal to us then.

​

[This message has been edited by redstang281, 12-12-2001]

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

"I would just like Athiest to seriously think about the theories that scientist conjure up to deny the existance of God."

​

Please realize that science does NOT develop theories in order to deny the existence of God. Science does not address the supernatural at all.

---

But I believe that it does. I believe scientist don't want there to be a God because if there is something all knowing, then they can't feel quite as smart as they would like to feel.I understand science does not have all the answers now, and most of you in here are pending your beliefs on what can be proven at the time. I would just like for all of you to investigate the side of creation and see if you can prove their theories wrong. If you read on the creation sites and some of the christian sites you can find all the answers to the questions you have. If you are so convinced of what you believe in than you should have no trouble studying the bible, christianaity, and the creationist pov. If you are going to form an oppinion on anything you must look at the other side of the matter.

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 12-12-2001]

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
So go on the "Is the bible the word of God" thread and prove that it is....

​

An interesting problem with that statement is that if I were to say well 1 plus 1 is 2 you would answer that that was conceived of by God. The same is true for everything that you hold true which means that to debate this point you and I need to agree on a "piece of knowledge perceived by man alone" that you disagree with and I subscribe to, any suggestions....

---

I will. I'm trying to get through all these posts that have swarmed in.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Q/ Where the hell did he mention "the law of light"?

​

Q/ What the hell is "the law of light"?

​

Q/ Have you ever heard of relativity?

​

If you had you would not assert that time is necessarily linear

​

Q/ How do you explain that pure conjecture gives such an accurate model of the world?

​

And if God manipulated things as he saw fit there would be a large body of anomalous data that could be used to prove his existence. There is no data so there can be no scientific view on his existence or nonexistence.

---

He said that light could not be created or destroyed. I believe that after God created light it could not be created or destroyed. That is assuming man's comprehension of what he has observed of light is correct.I think we both agree that God has not presented to everyone in mankind with undeniable evidence of himself. So you can stop mentioning that in every post How do I explain that pure conjecture has an accurate model of the world? That's your opinion. I feel that the creation representation is much more feasible. It explains a lot more than evolution, science.. etc. You can call it my opinion if you life, but I'd would rather you do research as I have.Oh and even if time is not linear it still has to have a reason for existing. Linear was not pertinent to my argument and was just a way of expression.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
1) It doesn't name me one peer review article that attempts to disprove God...

​

2) What we are saying is that while there is no data everyone needs to stop taking positions on what is true...

​

3) My problem with the creationists (mostly YECs) is that they are hypocrites for example Snelling of answers in genesis:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/realsnelling.htm

​

Please suggest a site that you would like us to examine.....

​

---

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm
http://www.jackcuozzo.com
http://www.creationists.org/I expect than when you initially start examining these sites you will get angry, think they are stupid, and possibly even laugh. All I ask is for you to examine the whole site and really think about the big picture before you come to a conclusion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
That would be the 1st law of thermodynamics he gave you the correct name use it.... About every other post you substitute in a different term (science for pre big bang singularity is another example) this is rude and could potentially cloud the argument.

---

If you say so.

quote:

---

Ok bub Ill stop mentioning it if you accept that a God which interacts with the universe is observable and capable of being the object of scientific study....

---

The methods in which God uses are capable of study, but not God himself.

quote:

---

In what way is it more feasible? what research?

---

See the links I sent presented in the other post.

quote:

---

Also your "it has to have a reason for existing" argument is unconvincing it would for example be applicable to your God. If you were to reply that he needed no reason I would argue that this principle of existence without reason is also potentially applicable to time and the mass/energy of the universe...

---

I agree that the existence of God is not scientific. That is what is to be expected of God. But what I'm trying to get you to understand is that the variable which God fills is not fillable by science because of the nature in which the variable is required.

quote:

---

And I was merely pointing out a problem with your analogy of time as a straight line....

---

If you understood my point then why attack the analogy?

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 12-12-2001]

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:

The science is thin on the ground to say the least and consists as far as I could see of the same old tired arguments that have been more than adequately answered in the past...

---

You have so many questions on the fundamentals of Christianity. Those fundamentals are explained in detail in the sites I gave you. Because you are unfamiliar with those I expect that you didn't read the entire site. And probably not all of the scientific reasons for creation.
Is this the only research you did or did you bother to read any rebuttals of their arguments?
[/QUOTE]Of course I have researched.
Oh and please would you clarify your position are you a YEC or an OEC?
[/QUOTE]

​

YEC

"See above for why a God that interacts with the universe is by definition capable of scientific study..."If you believe that then you are limiting God. Because you don't beleive that something that is beyond your understanding could possibly exist. It's arrogant to limit the unknown based on the knowledge you have of the known."I am sorry but claiming that there is a niche for God that only God can fill doesn't do you any good here...."I have explained it many many times to you and yet you still don't understand. You have closed your eyes completly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:

No, its not limited thinking. I am saying that the ENERGY to create photons/electrons/neutrinos ad nauseum existed pre-big bang. I NEVER said light/photons existed. i.e. It existed forever, & was not created ex nihilo.

​

I NEVER mentioned the Law Of Light, whatever that may be. Joz asks the questions I would, please refer to that post. I NEVER SAID LIGHT COULD NEITHER BE CREATED OR BE DESTROYED!!! This is a misquote! Read the post pls.

---

I didnt know what the exact law was called. I also wasn't stating that you called it "the law of light." But my point is that whatever you say existed before the big bang and has a scientific law that says it can not be created or destroyed still has to have a reason to reside where it does. And even further more it will need a reason to make a change. [b] [QUOTE] You still havent answered the question. You are just restating what you believe. I want to know HOW God interacts with the universe in an unmeasurable way, yet he has still changed something. Its paradoxical.
[/b][/QUOTE]Because when a scientist finds something unusual he makes a theory about it. IE The big bang and evolution. In your mind that would be where my oppinion is that scientist find ways to deny God.

​

[This message has been edited by redstang281, 12-12-2001]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by joz:
I will now ask you a set of questions please answer them....

​

1)Does God interact with the universe...

​

God interacts with everything. So yes, he interacts with the universe.
2)Do you accept that any interaction (assuming it affects the outcome in any way) is observable...
See this is the problem in your rationalization. You are presuming that I am saying that there is both a natural world that works independly of God and a God that can decide to jump in and out as he see's fit. What I am trying to say is that everything is under God's guidance and supervision except for man. He has granted man free will.

​

[This message has been edited by redstang281, 12-12-2001]

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Is god the universe? (I assume you will answer no as yes would imply God/universe creating itself ex nihilo)

​

If not then yes there is a physical system that God interacts with as an exterior agent...

​

As for your concept of free will it seems badly constrained (see lets face it)....

---

The bible said God created the universe, so I would have to say he is not the universe. So yes then I suppose he would be an exterior agent that interacts with the universe. In which their would be nothing in the universe that he doesn't interact with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
And given that he interacts with the universe what prevents an observation of that interaction?

---

That's simple enough to answer. Because God is not understood by man.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
You still havent answered the question. I want to know HOW God interacts with the universe in an unmeasurable way, yet he has still changed something. Its paradoxical

---

I have answered it. Everything that happens is a result of God's intentions. Those things may also have scientific explanations as well. Or shall I say, some may think they have scientific explanations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
My question was ;

​

"I want to know HOW God interacts with the universe in an unmeasurable way, yet he has still changed something."

​

Your reply "Everything that happens is a result of God's intentions. Those things may also have scientific explanations as well. Or shall I say, some may think they have scientific explanations. " How can you consider that an answer?

​

Whether its Gods will or scientific or not is irrelevant. Your telling me on another thread we have free will, theres Lucifer, Adam , all the things we do that God doesn't want us to etc. EVERYTHING isn't happening as a result of Gods intentions. Thats the textbook definition of "nebulous". Warbling on about how we don't understand God will get you nowhere. The question is clear.

​

---

God gave us free will. But gave nothing else freewill. I stated that earlier.If you want me to give you an example of an "unmeasurable way" that God has interacted with us, the most obvious would be creation. Then again there are miracles, visions, human emotions, and countless other occurancies that science can not "measure."

​

[This message has been edited by redstang281, 12-12-2001]