5 Questions...

quote:

---

Originally posted by oz:
That does not preclude an observation of the interaction between God and the universe....

​

---

So your belief is that if God did perform an unscientific event that through one of the repercussions it would prove itself?My point of view is that God could cover up the unscientific event to make it look to us like it was scientific. It seems to coincided with the bible that God doesn't want to globally reveal himself until the end. I can put it in a hypothetical example if you think that would better illustrate my point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
And how does the account of God turning Lots wife (I think it was Lot) wife into a pillar of salt fit in? God seems to have slipped up on covering things up there....

​

---

"This remarkable happening is stated matter-of-factly, with no suggestion that it was a special miracle or divine judgment. Lot’s wife "looked back" (the phrase might even be rendered "returned back" or "lagged back") seeking to cling to her luxurious life in Sodom (note Christ’s reference to this in Luke 17:32,33) and was destroyed in the "overthrow" (Genesis 19:25,29) of the city. There are many great deposits of rock salt in the region, probably formed by massive precipitation from thermal brines upwelling from the earth’s deep mantle during the great Flood. Possibly the overthrow buried her in a shower of these salt deposits blown skyward by the explosions. There is also the possibility that she was buried in a shower of volcanic ash, with her body gradually being converted into "salt" over the years following through the process of petrifaction, in a manner similar to that experienced by the inhabitants of Pompeii and Herculaneum in the famous eruption of Mount Vesuvius.
- Henry Morris (taken from: "The Defenders Study Bible")On a side note, I do believe God offers up miracles. I just can't prove them. Again, probably because God chooses not to reveal himself globally until the end.

[b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by mark24:
In fact the 1st law states matter/energy can't be created or destroyed. Argue with the scienctific ratinale if you want, but you'll need observable evidence to back up your claims.
[/b][/QUOTE]Because matter/energy can exist indefinatly in the past or the future does not give it a reason to be here.And without a reason to be here you must resort to the super natural.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
"On a side note, I do believe God offers up miracles. I just can't prove them. Again, probably because God chooses not to reveal himself globally until the end."

​

If you can't prove them, why bother believing them?

---

You can't prove the big bang, so why bother believing it.

​

[This message has been edited by redstang281, 12-13-2001]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
"You can't prove the big bang, so why bother believing it. "

​

I don't believe the big bang. I hold it to be the best explanation to fit observable evidence.

---

So the best explanation for something by your beliefs is always scientific explanation, correct?So that would explain how God, something that is not provable thus far by science, is not your best explanation.But, if science says that matter can not be destroyed and can not be created, how can it's existence be scientifically explainable without redoing our whole concept of science?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by joz:
[B] You seem to be laboring under the delusion that science claims God does not exist and that it would be a catastrophe for science to reevaluate and strengthen its opinions....Firstly as we have tried to explain the scientific position is that with no evidence for God there is no subject to discuss.... [B][/QUOTE]I understand what you are saying. I hope that you understand that I am saying that the whole concept of God precludes him from being defined by science.I'm sorry, I'm not always the best at explaining my point. I have attenency to sum up things I say that I think the fine details are obvious, which in a lot of cases are not obvious. So this has probably lead to the confusion and length of this thread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
"And without a reason to be here you must resort to the super natural."

​

Why? you ASSUME that something that has existed forever has to have a reason?

---

Because our reality can't just exist for no reason. [b] [QUOTE] "So the best explanation for something by your beliefs is always scientific explanation, correct?So that would explain how God, something that is not provable thus far by science, is not your best explanation.
[/b][/QUOTE]I didn't say I was trying to prove God by science, only by rational thought. I may have been under the false impression that most people in here were athiest, so I was trying to help expand people's mind into not limiting their beleifs on our concept of reality. [b] [QUOTE] But, if science says that matter can not be destroyed and can not be created, how can it's existence be scientifically explainable without redoing our whole concept of science?"The first two paragraphs are correct.The third is wrong in principle. Science explains via the first law pf thermodynamics (again) that matter & energy, though interchangeable cannot be created or destroyed. So, what concept of science needs redoing? Its science that makes the statement in the first place!
[/b][/QUOTE]I think scientific was poor word choice on my part. Again, with my other post I realized that everyone may not be athiest. I was just tying to say that reality itself must have a reason to be here. But this is probably the wrong message board to address this topic on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
"Because our reality can't just exist for no reason."

​

Why?

---

If there is no reason, then there is really no true connection between cause and effect.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Precisely. If it was there forever, there wouldn't be a cause to have an effect.

​

---

The point I am trying to make is hard to explain. But if you think about it for a while you will see what I mean.

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
The point I am trying to make is hard to explain. But if you think about it for a while you will see what I mean.

---

Maybe this will help. The effect would be our reality exist. What is the cause?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
I could answer, but I'm not sure what you mean, I think you left a word out? I could take that two ways. Pls clarify.

---

reality is the effect of what cause?

It has been brought to my attention by a friend that this concept is one that you can either understand, or not. But it can not be explain to someone.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
[b]

---

Redstang writes:
I think scientific was poor word choice on my part. Again, with my other post I realized that everyone may not be athiest. I was just tying to say that reality itself must have a reason to be here. But this is probably the wrong message board to address this topic on.[/QUOTE]

​

There's a Coffee House Forum where any topic can be discussed.

​

--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 12-15-2001][/B]

---

Understood, I will stop debating the issue.