Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 8:48 PM
33 online now:
Dredge, DrJones*, dwise1, JonF, kjsimons, Tanypteryx (6 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,169 Year: 9,205/19,786 Month: 1,627/2,119 Week: 387/576 Day: 62/128 Hour: 2/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Author Topic:   5 Questions...
redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 107 (642)
12-12-2001 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by joz
12-12-2001 10:44 AM


"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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by joz, posted 12-12-2001 10:44 AM joz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by joz, posted 12-12-2001 11:14 AM redstang281 has responded
 Message 80 by nator, posted 12-12-2001 4:25 PM redstang281 has not yet responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3361 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 62 of 107 (643)
12-12-2001 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by redstang281
12-12-2001 8:30 AM


"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."

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.

"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."

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.

"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. "

Here I'm going to ask you to justify your belief.

What theories have been created to disprove God?

There isn't a single scientific theory that mentions God, much less disproves Him.
An obvious counter is that many scientists do hold religious beliefs, so they're trying to disprove their own beliefs now?

"I would just like for all of you to investigate the side of creation and see if you can prove their theories wrong."

I accept the challenge! Throw a couple at us. I warn you now, just believing isn't good enough here. The theory that best fits the facts wins. I ask you present evidence that creation happened, & not just try to disprove other theories, whether those theories are right or wrong doesn't mean creation happened.

I have never found anything convincing on these sites, & yes, I have read creationist literature. They are written by people with a poor understanding of science, & nearly always try to counter scientific theories instead of presenting evidence that supports their own. Where "evidence" is presented, it is either based on old evidence/data that has been superceded, rather disingenuously ignoring said evidence, or, the theory that the evidence purports to support is much more satisfactorily explained by mainstream science anyhow. All this is a bit irrelevent to people like yourself, because you know which account your going to believe before you read it anyway.

Finally........

Joz wrote

"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."

& you glibly waved off the fact that you deliberately misquoted me with....

"If you say so." in reply to Joz.

This is not acceptable. If you can only make sense of posts by twisting them to suit your argument, I suggest you reasses your logic. No wonder the creationism makes sense to you.

Mark

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 8:30 AM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 11:37 AM mark24 has responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 107 (644)
12-12-2001 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by redstang281
12-12-2001 11:02 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
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 have explained it many many times to you and yet you still don't understand. You have closed your eyes completly.


I will now ask you a set of questions please answer them....

1)Does God interact with the universe...

2)Do you accept that any interaction (assuming it affects the outcome in any way) is observable...

If you answered yes to those questions you have conceded that God is observable....

If you didn't examples please.....

Actually I make no claims about the unknown (you do) and so I do not constrain the possible set of solutions (once again with God is the answer you do). So who is being arrogant?

And you have trotted out a handful of a priori assertions without the backing of any evidence whatsoever, a review of the topic seems to suggest that it is actually you who have been sticking dogmatically to a position unbacked by any evidence....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 11:02 AM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 11:52 AM joz has responded

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 107 (646)
12-12-2001 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by mark24
12-12-2001 11:08 AM


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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by mark24, posted 12-12-2001 11:08 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by mark24, posted 12-12-2001 12:31 PM redstang281 has responded
 Message 84 by mark24, posted 12-13-2001 5:58 AM redstang281 has responded

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 107 (647)
12-12-2001 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by joz
12-12-2001 11:14 AM


[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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by joz, posted 12-12-2001 11:14 AM joz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by joz, posted 12-12-2001 12:08 PM redstang281 has responded

joz
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 107 (650)
12-12-2001 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by redstang281
12-12-2001 11:52 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
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.

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)....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 11:52 AM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 12:20 PM joz has responded

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 107 (654)
12-12-2001 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by joz
12-12-2001 12:08 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by joz, posted 12-12-2001 12:08 PM joz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by joz, posted 12-12-2001 12:23 PM redstang281 has responded

joz
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 107 (656)
12-12-2001 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by redstang281
12-12-2001 12:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
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.

And given that he interacts with the universe what prevents an observation of that interaction?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 12:20 PM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 1:21 PM joz has responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3361 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 69 of 107 (660)
12-12-2001 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by redstang281
12-12-2001 11:37 AM


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.

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


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 71 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 1:25 PM mark24 has responded

  
redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 107 (666)
12-12-2001 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by joz
12-12-2001 12:23 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by joz, posted 12-12-2001 12:23 PM joz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by joz, posted 12-12-2001 3:03 PM redstang281 has responded

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 107 (667)
12-12-2001 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by mark24
12-12-2001 12:31 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by mark24, posted 12-12-2001 12:31 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by mark24, posted 12-12-2001 2:05 PM redstang281 has responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3361 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 72 of 107 (673)
12-12-2001 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by redstang281
12-12-2001 1:25 PM


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.

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

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 1:25 PM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 2:43 PM mark24 has not yet responded

  
redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 107 (676)
12-12-2001 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by mark24
12-12-2001 2:05 PM


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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by mark24, posted 12-12-2001 2:05 PM mark24 has not yet responded

joz
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 107 (678)
12-12-2001 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by redstang281
12-12-2001 1:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
That's simple enough to answer. Because God is not understood by man.

That does not preclude an observation of the interaction between God and the universe....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 1:21 PM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 3:11 PM joz has responded

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 107 (679)
12-12-2001 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by joz
12-12-2001 3:03 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by joz, posted 12-12-2001 3:03 PM joz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by joz, posted 12-12-2001 3:36 PM redstang281 has responded

Prev1234
5
678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019