The Biblical God Incompatible With Big Bang.

I'm not going to criticise your post but I'm going to ask you to think about some things - and you really should present your case.

quote:

---

4.. The Biblical God claims to exist in a location in the universe where a throne, angels and other beings exist in the universe.

---

Do the verses you have in mind really say this ?Are they intended to be read literally ?Could they refer to the current situation ? Couldn't God create the Universe and then set up his throne within it ?Simce God is said to be a spirit, a non-physical being, would he need space to exist in ?

quote:

---

The Biblical God is compatible with all three of the scientific laws of TD. If you can find it, see my great debate with Jar on that a few years ago in which he fell flat in his attempt to refute.

---

Cavediver might find it worth seeking out - but only to laugh at it. I know you like to trumpet your "victory" but the simple fact that Jar did a lousy job of arguing against you doesn't make your arguments any better.{ABE}
Here's the link
EvC Forum: Great Debate, Intelligent Design, Supernatural And Thermodynamic Laws (between Buzsaw and jar only)
But if you want the summary, Buz's argument relies on there being an infinite supply of energy.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Imo, in the after debate thread opened to all which went the full coarse of 10+ pages, nobody empirically refuted my position regarding God/TD laws

---

A purely theoretical argument with no observable consequences is not open to empirical refutation. Even though you've finally learned to spell "empirical" I suggest that you stop throwing the word around until you understand what it means.In fact you couldn't deal with the objections based on what your initial assumption of infinite energy does to thermodynamics. And still can't. Infinite energy is equivalent to creating energy (and potentially destroying it) and an infinite pool of energy will always have an infinite amount of enery available to do work. Thus the best you cna say is that under yur proposal the 1st and 2nd laws are technically followed but nobody could actually tell if they were or weren't.I really don't know why you try to call attention to the debate because your performance was monumentally bad. The only way that anyone could argue against your point was to rely on whatever ammunition you gave. You should have been able to win even if Jar had been arguing well - instead of having to rely on your opponent's errors to save you form defeat.

quote:

---

We're talking what the Bible says

---

THere seems to be very little discussion of this, in fact. So let's take a closer look at one of the citations that supposedly supports your case, Revelation 4.Revelation is an account of a vision. Ignorign possiiblities that most Christians would object to, the things seen might be images of real physical things or they might be human perceptions of spiritual realities or they might be purely symbolic. The images of Revelation 1:12-16 are, for instance likely to be largely or completely symbolic. Certainly there doesn't seem to be any good reason why God should have to maintain literal gold lampstands to symbolise the churches or for Jesus to have a literal physical sword coming out of his mouth or hold literal physical stars in his hand.Revelation 4 itself features four rather unlikely beasts. Is the six-winged lion a real physical being ? Or is this description simply an image - symbolic or not - intended to communicate an image to the human readers ?YOur argument rests on the assumption that the throne and presumably the rest of the scene are direct images of physical reality. But to the best of my knowledge the Bible doesn't say that. All it tells us is that this is a vision and thus likely to contain things which are not part of physical reality. If the Bible speaks directly in favour of your interpretation then please show where it does so - with a full reference. I do not beleive that it does and therefore Revelation 4 offers no significant support for your assertions.

That's the whole of your response ? You think that God would likely have these bizarre creatures around ? Why ? And what about the other elements from Revelation 1 ?You said that this discussion should be based around what the Bible says, but you have offered very few examples and none that clearly support your claims. And you don't seem interested in discussing the examples you have produced.So is it about what the Bible says or not ?

Buz, have you not been reading my posts ? As I already pointed out the verses may refer to spirtual realities or they may be symbols. It is up to you to show that they definitely refer to a physical place.In fact it's utterly bizarre that you should choose as one of your examples the four living creatures whose very appearance suggests that they aren't likely to be physical creatures as evidence that the verses must refer to something physical.The one remaining point is Jesus. Now if I remember correctly Paul tells us that the resurrected body is a physical body ? And after the resurrection the descriptions of Jesus have him mysteriouly appearing and disappearing. And then there's the ascension to consider. And unless you reject the idea of the Trinity Jesus is God - and since GOd is a spirit, why wouldn't Jesus have returned to spirtual form ?(And let's add that even if you can address these points you astill haven't shown anything about the situation before our Universe began which is the key point of your argument)

[quote] It seems that to effect the Genesis flood God would have done something significant to the planet to cause the condensation of the atmospheric H2O.
[/quiote]No, it seems that YECs (NOT ID'ers in general - as you know very well) invent a lot of gobbledygook to try to blame God for the fact that the evidence proves them wrong. It's really a piece of quite blatant dishonesty because there is no explanation of how it could possibly work ((and you know that, too - or you ought to).

I don't see why the other things have to exist before the universe - if they literally exist at all. And if they are spirits rather than material beings why would space matter to them ?

quote:

---

The nerve! You people have rendered him essentially a nonexistent subhuman, a blatant liar, doing nothing, no place to exist and totally impotent (abe: whereas Buz has praised him in his rightful state of majesty of the universe, creating [except for space because he's just not up to that job - PAK] and managing it all from his glorious headquarters in the universe called Heaven.

---

{A correction has been added since the original contradicted the OP}So according to you it belittles God to say that he is capable of creating the Universe - all of it - while claiming that he is incapable of that is praise.That IS your point of the OP. God cannot create the entire universe. Because Buzsaw has decreed that God is a physical being. And it says so in the Bible because Buzsaw has decreed it - never mind what the Bible actually says, that gets in the way of the Word of Buzsaw. It seems pretty clear whose "glory and majesty" you want to promote - and it isn't God's.