GOP Candidates Fueled by Evangelical Insanity
-
Physicists have demonstrated that our universe more than likely began as an infinitely small and dense object..
********************************************
That is making my point, atheists (even if correct??) have the dilemma of having to take for granted the infinitely small and dense object but where did it come from?
Physicists have demonstrated that our universe more than likely began as an infinitely small and dense object..
********************************************
That is making my point, atheists (even if correct??) have the dilemma of having to take for granted the infinitely small and dense object but where did it come from?
And Christians, by the same token, have the dilemma of demonstrating that their God also created the universe from nothing. Nullius in verba.
Also, the creationist argument is a lazy cop-out within itself; it's a a prime example of the Fallacy of Passing the Buck. Christians explain away Creation, of our universe in this case, by just saying "God did it", while failing at the same time to answer the very same problem when applied to God himself. Who created the Creator? Where did God come from, nothingness? Or, was he created by an infinitely more complex Creator than himself? If so, then who created that Creator, in turn? Do you see the problem?
-
Also, I have to disagree with your assertion that scientists have to take anything for granted; they are doing no such thing. When physicists say that the universe more than likely originated in a Big Bang, they are simply stating that that is what their most current understanding of the observations of the universe are pointing to. 500 years ago, the most cutting edge understanding of the universe involved the Earth being the center of the universe, with the Sun, Moon and planets revolving around it, and that diseases were caused by evil spirits. It only took the invention of the telescope and the microscope to radically change our understanding from there.
So yes, I agree with you: our current understanding that the universe seemingly appeared from nothing is rather frustrating. But that view has more to do with our own current mental and technological limitations. The universe exists as it exists, and it is our job to overcome our current limitations in order to better understand it.
-
Also, I have to disagree with your assertion that scientists have to take anything for granted; they are doing no such thing.
**************************************************************
If the latest scientific theory about creation is that it all started with a small dense object then absolutely science is taking the small dense object for granted.
-
Also, I have to disagree with your assertion that scientists have to take anything for granted; they are doing no such thing.
**************************************************************
If the latest scientific theory about creation is that it all started with a small dense object then absolutely science is taking the small dense object for granted.
Also, I have to disagree with your assertion that scientists have to take anything for granted; they are doing no such thing.
**************************************************************
If the latest scientific theory about creation is that it all started with a small dense object then absolutely science is taking the small dense object for granted.
The scientific theory says "given all the evidence, it seems as if it started with a small dense object - now let's try to figure out what that small dense object is"
You make out as if scientists think they know everything, that there are no more questions being asked, that everything is accepted on face value. Actually, that's religious people.
-
Also, I have to disagree with your assertion that scientists have to take anything for granted; they are doing no such thing.
**************************************************************
If the latest scientific theory about creation is that it all started with a small dense object then absolutely science is taking the small dense object for granted.
The scientific theory says "given all the evidence, it seems as if it started with a small dense object - now let's try to figure out what that small dense object is"
You make out as if scientists think they know everything, that there are no more questions being asked, that everything is accepted on face value. Actually, that's religious people.
The scientific theory says "given all the evidence, it seems as if it started with a small dense object - now let's try to figure out what that small dense object is"
You make out as if scientists think they know everything, that there are no more questions being asked, that everything is accepted on face value. Actually, that's religious people.
You are right we are learning more and one reason science cannot accept a spiritual realm is that is because it is something that can't be studied or measured but as we learn new things (one of the more recent things I have seen posted here was about new dimensions) maybe the spiritual realm is another dimension? The bible is a revelation there is more to this world than meets the eye and it is right. The bible said things seen were made of things that do not appear many centuries ago and we know today that is true with physical things being composed of unseen atoms. The bible centuries ago said the universe had a beginning when most believed the universe was itself eternal. The bible is not a science book it is a revelation book. Jesus was a revelation.
-
"...one reason science cannot accept..."
You misunderstand how science works I think. There's no point blank acceptance of things, no starting point of 'this is what we want, so let's prove it' - instead it's 'what can we see, and how do we explain it?' If I let this rock fall, it hits the floor - why? If I drop this grape, it hits the floor at the same time - why? Where does rain come from? What happens to the sun at night?
Before people starting taking a scientific approach to things, these were just put down to the deity du jour - sacrifice a virgin, the rain will come, that kind of thing. The more we can explain, the less people can just attribute it to a deity. Sure, there are things that we currently don't understand, but that is different to saying we'll never know and worshipping whichever god or gods our parents told us to.
-
The scientific theory says "given all the evidence, it seems as if it started with a small dense object - now let's try to figure out what that small dense object is"
You make out as if scientists think they know everything, that there are no more questions being asked, that everything is accepted on face value. Actually, that's religious people.
You are right we are learning more and one reason science cannot accept a spiritual realm is that is because it is something that can't be studied or measured but as we learn new things (one of the more recent things I have seen posted here was about new dimensions) maybe the spiritual realm is another dimension? The bible is a revelation there is more to this world than meets the eye and it is right. The bible said things seen were made of things that do not appear many centuries ago and we know today that is true with physical things being composed of unseen atoms. The bible centuries ago said the universe had a beginning when most believed the universe was itself eternal. The bible is not a science book it is a revelation book. Jesus was a revelation.
Jesus was a revelation.
and the fact that we only have other people's accounts of his teachings has stunned me for my entire life. I smelled bullshit when I was a kid. Many people have accused the church throughout history of hiding his writings. The genocide of the cathars has long been held as a deliberate attempt to extinguish the "true word". I don't doubt it at this point.
Whehter he was this so called son of god I don't know, but I have zero doubt we've been kept from his true teachings. It's all a theatre. This world is a clown show and I believe he came to tell us that.
-
Sounds like an advocate for the God of the Gaps
-
Sounds like an advocate for the God of the Gaps
Says the Richard Dawkins disciple.
-
Sounds like an advocate for the God of the Gaps
Says the Richard Dawkins disciple.
Says the Richard Dawkins disciple.
Is that supposed to be an insult? Please explain.
-
Sounds like an advocate for the God of the Gaps
Says the Richard Dawkins disciple.
Says the Richard Dawkins disciple.
I'm not sure what the insult is, so I'm not sure how to respond. I imagine it wont be ironic coming from you in any way though...
-
Wrong again Woody. I never said that as an insult. Your views are totally in line with Dawkins are they not?
-
You definitely worded that as if it was a jab at me.
I do not know all of Dawkins views, I couldn't tell you.
If we do, I can tell you I used my own reasoning and information gathering to get there. I wasn't just shown a book...
But yes, this sounds like the god of the gaps argument. As science discovers more and more about the universe, we find more and more areas a literal interpretation of the bible is objectively wrong. This forces those on your side to cling to the gaps that remain and say "Ah ha! You can't prove this, so god did it!"
Give it time and you'll keep receding. Just like the religious influence and population in the US.
-
look it up, Woody.
google "Richard Dawkins". Read it. You tell us what you think.
-
Wrong again Woody. I never said that as an insult. Your views are totally in line with Dawkins are they not?
Wrong again Woody. I never said that as an insult. Your views are totally in line with Dawkins are they not?
So, if not an insult, what? Like "says the person I'm talking to?" I'm genuinely confused.
-
Wrong again Woody. I never said that as an insult. Your views are totally in line with Dawkins are they not?
So, if not an insult, what? Like "says the person I'm talking to?" I'm genuinely confused.
-
Did I say that?
I'm commenting on the views you have described for us here. I said your argument sounded like it fits into the god of the gaps argument.
-
Did I say that?
I'm commenting on the views you have described for us here. I said your argument sounded like it fits into the god of the gaps argument.
Did I say that?
I'm commenting on the views you have described for us here. I said your argument sounded like it fits into the god of the gaps argument.
And I'm saying your views fit right in with Richard Dawkins. You are the one who took it as an insult.
-
So, the laws are there, and they are the laws that you should be living up to, but because you're 'only human after all' you can just kind of ignore them? That's mighty convenient.
Who said anything about ignoring anything. I said no one could keep the law. That is the reason Jesus came. Christianity is not built on a set of rules to follow it is a relationship with God. The bible speaks of a new covenant relationship that was to come and now we are living in it:
Jeremiah 31:31-34New International Version (NIV)31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to[a] them,[b]”
declares the Lord.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”
Christianity is not built on a set of rules to follow it is a relationship with God.
Oh Rly???
*Where is that damn Owl Meme when you need it??*
-
Christianity is not built on a set of rules to follow it is a relationship with God.
Oh Rly???
*Where is that damn Owl Meme when you need it??*
Oh Rly???
*Where is that damn Owl Meme when you need it??*
Jesus summed all the law and rules up like this:
The Greatest Commandment Read Leviticus 19:18; Deuteronomy 6:4-9 & Mark 12:28-34 Key verses: “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your being, with all your mind, and with all your strength. The second is this, You will love your neighbor as yourself. No other commandment is greater than these” (Mark 12:30-31).
Sometimes, simpler is better. The need to summarize the Law into a single, working principle was the likely motive behind the scribe’s question to Jesus: “Which commandment is the most important of all?” (Mark 12:28) Effectively summarizing the Pharisaical law and tradition of Jesus’ day was no easy task. The oral law alone consisted of some 613 statutes with 365 prohibitions. So it was a difficult question that the scribe asked Jesus. To answer it, Jesus skillfully drew from the Old Testament scriptures. First, He reaffirmed the foundational truth of Deuteronomy 6:4-5, known as the Shema: “Israel, listen! Our God is the Lord! Only the Lord! Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your being, and all your strength.” These words were written on the doorpost of every Jewish home. Next, Jesus joined this key truth with the commandment of Leviticus 19:18: “…you must love your neighbor as yourself.” With these few words, Jesus summed up the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospel that He came to bring.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login