|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 5 Questions... | |||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
redstang281 Inactive Member |
quote: "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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 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)....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: The problem is, you have no evidence that you have gleaned any knowledge from any supernatural origin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Thanks, Percy, I figured it out too late. I am glad you could fix it for me.
A
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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: 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 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
"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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
"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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
redstang281 Inactive Member |
[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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
redstang281 Inactive Member |
quote: You can't prove the big bang, so why bother believing it. [This message has been edited by redstang281, 12-13-2001]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
"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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
redstang281 Inactive Member |
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. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: No its the one that isnt totally lacking in evidence....
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
redstang281 Inactive Member |
[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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024