Author
|
Topic: Do atoms confirm or refute the bible?
|
Force
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 82 of 153 (469783)
06-07-2008 2:32 PM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by Equinox 10-30-2006 12:10 PM
|
|
Re: Deafening silence
Equinox,
Equinox writes: There are many of passages and even section in the Bible that talk about scientifically testable things, and about the physical nature of the real world (such as the passages in Psalms and Proverbs describing stars, the sky, weather, and such, the genetics of Gen 30, etc.).
Would an example be EXD:34:28 Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible
Leviticus 34:28 writes: And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. Edited by Force, : edit
Thanks To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 6 by Equinox, posted 10-30-2006 12:10 PM | | Equinox has not replied |
|
Force
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 85 of 153 (469832)
06-07-2008 11:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 84 by IamJoseph 06-07-2008 9:03 PM
|
|
Re: Deafening silence
IamJoseph,
IamJoseph writes: 40 days and nights without food, is not controverisal or unscientific: in this particular context. The context is unscientific if a man can go 40 days and 40 nights without eating or drinking. The idea that the verse is controversial is irrelevant. The context of the verse is like watching a marvel comics movie at the theater. We live in reality man! If there is a God out there, the way by which it does things, will be identified via Science. Edited by Force, : edit Edited by Force, : edit Edited by Force, : grammar edit
Thanks To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 84 by IamJoseph, posted 06-07-2008 9:03 PM | | IamJoseph has replied |
|
Force
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 87 of 153 (469834)
06-07-2008 11:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 86 by IamJoseph 06-07-2008 11:10 PM
|
|
Re: Deafening silence
IamJoseph, anything that is supernatural is unscientific. Anything that is supernatural is not real. If God exists then it is a natural being. A being that Science will advocate. Therefor if a phenomena is supernatural it is unscientific and unreal regardless of the context. Edited by Force, : edit Edited by Force, : edit
Thanks To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 86 by IamJoseph, posted 06-07-2008 11:10 PM | | IamJoseph has replied |
|
Force
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 90 of 153 (469840)
06-08-2008 12:06 AM
|
Reply to: Message 89 by IamJoseph 06-07-2008 11:43 PM
|
|
Re: Deafening silence
IamJoseph, you're insane man! Get help!
Thanks To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 89 by IamJoseph, posted 06-07-2008 11:43 PM | | IamJoseph has replied |
|
Force
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 101 of 153 (469904)
06-08-2008 1:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 91 by IamJoseph 06-08-2008 12:32 AM
|
|
Re: Deafening silence
IamJoseph, nothing can be proven absolute.
Thanks To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 91 by IamJoseph, posted 06-08-2008 12:32 AM | | IamJoseph has replied |
|
Force
Inactive Member
|
Re: Deafening silence
Joseph, I have posted my argument.
Thanks To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 103 by IamJoseph, posted 06-08-2008 8:11 PM | | IamJoseph has replied |
|
Force
Inactive Member
|
Re: Deafening silence
Joseph, You obviously do not understand Science or History. Edited by Force, : grammar
Thanks To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 107 by IamJoseph, posted 06-08-2008 8:51 PM | | IamJoseph has replied |
|