Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8972 total)
185 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, dwise1, JonF, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), ringo (6 members, 179 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,451 Year: 7,199/23,288 Month: 1,105/1,214 Week: 117/303 Day: 37/40 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   5 Questions...
joz
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 107 (681)
12-12-2001 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by redstang281
12-12-2001 3:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
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.


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....

Oh and would you mind reprasing that first paragraph as it is giberish....

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 3:11 PM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 3:46 PM joz has responded

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 107 (683)
12-12-2001 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by joz
12-12-2001 3:36 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by joz, posted 12-12-2001 3:36 PM joz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by joz, posted 12-12-2001 4:00 PM redstang281 has not yet responded
 Message 83 by mark24, posted 12-13-2001 5:52 AM redstang281 has responded

joz
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 107 (686)
12-12-2001 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by redstang281
12-12-2001 3:46 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:

"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.


Yes but by stipulating that miracles happen you are conceding that your God sometimes interacts to produce anomalous results (the events would hardly be miraculous if not)....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 3:46 PM redstang281 has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 79 of 107 (687)
12-12-2001 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by redstang281
12-12-2001 8:11 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
That is why I don't trust the knowledge conceived by man alone.

The problem is, you have no evidence that you have gleaned any knowledge from any supernatural origin.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 8:11 AM redstang281 has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 80 of 107 (688)
12-12-2001 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by redstang281
12-12-2001 11:02 AM


[QUOTE]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.

First, it is only your particular view that God is all-powerful and omnicient. Remember the old logic brain-teaser, "Could God make a rock so heavy that He couldn't lift it"?

"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. [/B][/QUOTE]

Your particular faith has just as much credence as any other, looking at it from an evidenciary viewpoint.

I would say that your opponent's eyes are wide open, as he is willing to put every religious variation through the same logical wringer. If we are to decide whom has the more limited, closed-minded viewpoint, I would say that it is probably yours, as there seems to be no way you would ever question or doubt what you believe.

------------------
"Never trust something that thinks for itself if you can't see where it keeps it's brain"--Mr. Weasley


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 11:02 AM redstang281 has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 81 of 107 (689)
12-12-2001 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Percy
12-12-2001 8:49 AM


Thanks, Percy, I figured it out too late. I am glad you could fix it for me.

A


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 12-12-2001 8:49 AM Percy has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 82 of 107 (690)
12-12-2001 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by redstang281
12-12-2001 8:53 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
But I believe that it does.

Regardless of what you believe, or even what some individual scientists might think, science, as a method, does not address the supernatural. Science deals with naturalistic explanations for naturalistic phenomena.

You should know that there are many scientists, including Evolutionary Biologists, who believe in God. Among the believers, there are Christians, as well as people of other faiths.

I will remind you that the Church was quite involved in science and scientific findings a while back, and that's when people like Galileo were pursecuted for making findings which went against holy doctrine.

As soon as science stopped allowing supernatural explanations as evidence, we began to make huge leaps in understanding. In fact, we came out of the Dark Ages.

quote:
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.

Do you even know any scientists, personally?
I happen to be married to one, and have many friends who are scientists. I have to tell you that, in my experience, scientists are the first to say when they don't know something. This is due to their training, which requires them to be careful that they can ALWAYS back up what they claim with sound evidence. Know-it-alls who can't put the evidence where their mouths are don't make it in the profession.

Which is the more close-minded, self-satisfied position; the scientist who must back up everything they claim with evidence and who is willing to say "I don't know" when there isn't enough evidence, and who also must be willing to change their views if the evidence demands it, or the religious person who simply states what they believe, sans evidence, and does not ever challenge those beliefs?

quote:
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.

I have read a lot of scientific creationist literature, and the science they use to support what they say is terrible. They misquote and misrepresent scientists and their work repeatedly and shamelessly. They are shown over and over that their claims are contrary to the evidence, yet they continue to repeat their misinformation, sometimes for years.

It seems to me that in order to be one of several of the more radical types of Creationist, I must twist and ignore evidence and stop using logic.

To be blunt, become I would have to become intellectually-dishonest.

This is the example that leaders of the movement like Duane Gish and Henry Morris provide.

Allison

------------------
"Never trust something that thinks for itself if you can't see where it keeps it's brain"--Mr. Weasley

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 8:53 AM redstang281 has not yet responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 83 of 107 (699)
12-13-2001 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by redstang281
12-12-2001 3:46 PM


"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 don't believe the moon is full of custard & you can't prove that either? Exactly what miracles have been shown to be the work of God, & couldn't be any other naturalistic process? Jumping ahead, given no other evidence, why believe at all? Or at the very least why Christianity & not Judaism, Hinduism, if your looking for explanations, they all have them too?

Also, since you say knowledge gleaned by man alone is suspect, what supernatural knowledge do you have to share with us thats more accurate than say, knowledge of electrons?

Just WHAT knowledge did God give us that we never had before & were then able to go away & prove empirically?

I would be more impressed with any religion that would send Moses down from Mount Sinai with a comprehensive Lawbook that wouldn't become dated. & at the same time give us General Relativity, or knowledge of the atom.

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 3:46 PM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by redstang281, posted 12-13-2001 9:48 AM mark24 has responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 84 of 107 (700)
12-13-2001 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by redstang281
12-12-2001 11:37 AM


"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."

re scientific laws, it doesn't. 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.

What reason does matter/energy have for existing? Pure conjecture. You do like taking things and assuming them to be factual, don't you? You will need to provide evidence of this before you go stating things you believe are FACT.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-13-2001]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 11:37 AM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by redstang281, posted 12-13-2001 9:44 AM mark24 has responded

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 107 (711)
12-13-2001 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by mark24
12-13-2001 5:58 AM


[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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by mark24, posted 12-13-2001 5:58 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by mark24, posted 12-13-2001 3:31 PM redstang281 has responded

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 107 (712)
12-13-2001 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by mark24
12-13-2001 5:52 AM


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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by mark24, posted 12-13-2001 5:52 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by mark24, posted 12-13-2001 10:03 AM redstang281 has responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 87 of 107 (716)
12-13-2001 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by redstang281
12-13-2001 9:48 AM


"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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by redstang281, posted 12-13-2001 9:48 AM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by redstang281, posted 12-13-2001 10:42 AM mark24 has not yet responded

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 107 (718)
12-13-2001 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by mark24
12-13-2001 10:03 AM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by mark24, posted 12-13-2001 10:03 AM mark24 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by joz, posted 12-13-2001 11:03 AM redstang281 has responded

joz
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 107 (721)
12-13-2001 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by redstang281
12-13-2001 10:42 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
So the best explanation for something by your beliefs is always scientific explanation, correct?

No its the one that isnt totally lacking in evidence....

quote:
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?


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....

Secondly while it would be a hammer blow to any system of knowledge not based on observations (i.e. its in this 2000 year old book so it is true) science is free to reassess its position as it is based on observation and a "survival of the fittest" (theory) philosophy....

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by redstang281, posted 12-13-2001 10:42 AM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by redstang281, posted 12-13-2001 11:38 AM joz has responded

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 107 (724)
12-13-2001 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by joz
12-13-2001 11:03 AM


[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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by joz, posted 12-13-2001 11:03 AM joz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by joz, posted 12-17-2001 3:47 PM redstang281 has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020