well put, but i dont think separate universes can explain anything though. either he cant lift it or he cant create it. if he is omnipotent he shouldnt need various universes. and that would also disagree with the fact that He is omnibenevolent.
theres also the can He make 2 + 3 = 7 and can He break a promise? interesting stuff. philosophy is a really fun class after you get past the boring first few chapters
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Well, I always thought of God as someone with serious video game editing skillz....i wont use halo editor as an example cuz wow would prolly be more appropriate. If you have seen the videos of the zones where the creators have been working then you may follow where I'm going.
I dont think he could make a stone so great that he couldnt lift it because he has the ultimate editing powers, he can edit his str to do whatever he wants He/she/it can DO whatever it wants. Theoretically since the name for the the hebrew god ( the common christian god) means "he who causes to be" then he could turn into a giant Kerby if he wanted to...lol, that would be funny. But anyways ya. Its like video game creator in my mind (wow im a nerd :P), able to create anything and even if he chooses to interact with these creations then he can be anything he desires.
So, that was a look inside my head so im not sure how clear it was lol.:thumbsup:
then he is not omnipotent, and by definition of the Christian bible, God is omnipotent. thus this is contradictory of Him. weird huh? either he cant make the large stone, or he cant lift it.
also there is a 'problem of evil as well' in the biblical texts.
and your analogy clearly undermines those 'facts' stated
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
in philosophy we discussed the philosophy of religion, and as you know, according to some monotheistic religions, God/etc is omnipotent, so one raises the question:
can God create a stone so large that even He cannot lift it?
really interesting, a paradox for sure.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
haha ya, i think people try to think that people from thousands of years ago where absolutely stupid and almost retarded. Yes they lacked some of the technology we have but there is a clear line between superstitious and "ZOMG OMFG I JUST SAW A DUDE WIT DA WINGS!HAXXXXX" I dont think they were THAT confused rofl.
i dont think you can see angels...but most people meant angel as a holy messenger or guardian, so if they survived some horrible disease, or really good news came, they would say it was divine intervention.
and they were pretty confused during the Salem witch trials...so i dont trust their mental state either...
i dont believe the bible mentions wings either on angels...but i dont comb through it daily so im not sure.
EDIT: the bible does give a description of angels. Revelation 4:8 describes seraphim and Ezekiel 10 describes Cherubs
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
I said, no translation issues of REAL significance. of COURSE there are issues with certain words and their meaning but NEVER has the word angel been misconstrued. Some of the main translation issues i personally know of are the ones that try to say jesus was god, that a soul may or may not be a physical or spiritual thing based on greek translation. there are some more but those are off the top of my head.
What i was implying was, yes there are bibles with flaws, but for the most part there is nothing misconstrued as angel when it means meteor, or anything that severe.
i know, read my edit...hes going batty over meteors...
but read what i said earlier
seriously though, you cant take the bible literally. angels are said to be messengers and guardians, those two descriptions have multiple meanings to multiple people. also in a more logical standpoint, when a 'miracle' or un-worldly event happens, and no one knows the cause because of knowledge limitations, the give a divine shading to it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
I've never heard that about the translations..ever. I'm gonna have to disagree and say that you are going off of what someone told you because I've never heard anything of SERIOUS significance as to manipulation with originals. It's not really possible because we have a lot of stuff that would be considered original and primary so people have the ability to check that stuff themselves. This would be a HUGE issue if what you are saying is true.
really? nothing about translation issues? wow. go get yourself more than one version of a bible and see for yourself.
edit: oh nvm, i read more carefully, and i agree, hes a bit over the hill...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Ty Equinox. I appreciate the reassurance. Have you ever felt like you were being as civil as possible but it kept geting pushed and then YOU started to feel like an asshole? rofl, thats why im not going to post much in here anymore.
But, anyway i still want an answer. I really want someone with psychology experience, maybe some classes in college or even high school, im open for it.
IF there was no such things as angels why did so many of the bible writers speak of them? The only logical conclusion i could come to on that if there wasn't a god would be that all of them hallucinated in one way or another that they saw those things. But, ok heres an even better one. Moses saw the burning bush, it talked to him, it gave it's name. Hundreds of years later other people were approached by some supernatural force given the same name of a creator. The only way i think these kinds of things can be proven as false, actually, defended as false would be to simply say they are all lies! That is like saying for religious people that when someone dies God needs another angel in heaven, just as much a stretch on either side to me.
the bush was a pot bush lol.
seriously though, you cant take the bible literally. angels are said to be messengers and guardians, those two descriptions have multiple meanings to multiple people. also in a more logical standpoint, when a 'miracle' or un-worldly event happens, and no one knows the cause because of knowledge limitations, the give a divine shading to it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
My view on my this thread just keeps cycling back through the same information:
It's all too similar and related to be talked about separately.
No, Wiccans are like Witches. Were you being sarcastic?
no i was being serious. his everything comes from everything cycle of life and lion king thing made me wonder.
i dont have a problem with any religion really. i just wanna know his stance.
I already stated my view on it, none of which would suggest wican :-P. I could probably find as much rational in a wican as in your belief system though apple ;-).
o i didnt catch it then. we went on forever. mind you saying it again? and im sure you can, all religions are founded on some truth.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
"The most correct" answer is relative to perspective. If I say the meaning of life is "pink fluffy wolves", and the guy next to me says "Evolution" then most people would conclude that evolution by comparison is a more accurate explanation than "Pink fluffy wolves". The primary problem I see with Evolution as a whole is that the basis falls apart at the very start. You can argue that different things morph into other things over time due to the needs through adaptation and that carbon dating can explain the generalized age of anything you can test, but at no point in recorded history to my knowledge has there ever been a case of anything that was dead becoming alive. All living things come from other living things, and without that, the entire basis for the system is shut down into "This is our best guess and you have to have a level of faith to believe that it works." In that measure of thinking Creationist views are as valid as if not more so than evolutionist because at least there is a somewhat logical sense of "this is how it could have happened."
one question.
what are you, a wiccan or something?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
i know the concept and the proof, i can look that stuff up. i just cant decipher it. i meant i want to know how exactly.
lol almost got me
in a philosophically way of asking, do we ever know for sure, isnt everything in existence a matter of faith?
back to angels and the bible, did you know some scientist, yes, scientists claim that there is a scenario for the plagues that happened to the egyptians?
btw everyone, i voted yes, i do believe in angels. so for the guy calling me close-minded, i urge you to reconsider, why would i argue to prove that religion is a lie when i am religious? lol ?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Concrete at the moment is kind of an oxymoron wouldn't you say? If it's concrete it's not something that will change, if it's subject to the whim of the moment then it's not concrete. Science has always been at the whim of change. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if within a 50 year time frame the "Solid concrete factual age of the earth" suddenly more than doubles or halves or some other seemingly drastic change. I brought up the point of Einstein previously because the idea that you couldn't calculate where for instance an electron would be at any given time essentially drove him insane in a sense. Their arose a theory within his life time that you could merely calculate the probability of an electron's placement and never the actual place it would be, and to that affect, he to the moment he died, writing on bed sheets, tried to figure out how to solve that equation to no avail. I believe the point some others have been making is that the scientific methodology is so subject to change and new information, to say anything is solid about the information is simply a poor observation of historical fact.
it is, but so is jumbo shrimp, the at the moment is pretty much what im getting at, its gonna change. read my other post.
Nope, I just repeated your concepts in clearer words.
umm thats not what i said still. those are my concepts in your view. dont do that, it makes you sound invalid.
The gravity part was an analogy to let you understand what I was gleaning from your post. As for the rest, you were saying that science is proven as being more correct than religion, which is also not provable. They both have their errors and their rights, and that's what I'm trying to say.
well u didnt read my other post where i define faith did u? thats what ive been saying too, glad we agree.
Sediments have naturally occuring radioactive levels (everything has some level of radioactivity, because radioactivity is just particle motion.) Using carbon dating based on sediments is a bad choice. They aren't radioactive based on historic moments, they are radioactive because scientifically every substance must have moving particles (since we have no yet been able to achieve perfect absolute zero.) My dad is a Reactor Supervisor for Exelon/Peco Nuclear Power. Your call.
i trust your dad. but this doesnt mean the earths date at this moment is wrong, it only supplies me with evidence that the scientists are right. defined radioactivity to a scientist wont make them change their mind. they already knew this as i did too, but they gave their explanation which is correct compared to any other alternatives.
The Bible doesn't say "And the Lord thy God sayeth unto thee, "The Earth is 14,000 years old", so I'm guessing you just mean seven-day Creationists who do not accept the Day Age theories or Theistic Evolutionary theories.
read my other post, but taking books from the bible, and comparing it with historical events that happened in the same era, conclude the age of the earth according to the bible.
It is my understanding that a phenomena is observed, a hypothesis is made to explain the phenomena, experimenting is pursued to gather evidence to support the hypothesis, and then, when adequate information is gathered, it is presented as theory. It is then repeated many times for accuracy. The problems happen when incorrect data type is gathered, incorrect quanitity is measured, incorrect sensations are experienced, etc., and then the data is still passed off as theory. And that's why it's theory and not fact. However, educationary systems these days have established scientific dogma where no new ideas are accepted unless they promote the default education.
theres more than one scientist working on the same subject. errors are eventually corrected.
i wish i really new all the workings of determining the actual age of the earth, i dont know because im neither geologist or astronomer. but i am certain the people doing this work are more than qualified.
calc was easy to understand and do, just not easy to take tests for lol.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
yup, its all a matter of faith whether that divine intervention was present. But as to whether the Earth is as old as Carbon dating says is not technically factual, non of us were there when it happened so we dont actually know. Although it may very well be that old we are putting our TRUST and FAITH in the numbers to give u results and believe in them. Saying that the earth is specifically w/e milions of years old as concrete, solid fact is like saying I know that my shift at work is 4 hours long so i am gauranteed to get off at 8. That is saying there wont be another variable like a waiter calling in sick and a big rush coming and the manager needs me to work another shift. Its that extra variable that you factor out, you dont know if there is another factor playing a role in the experiment just like i didnt know that the other guy would call in sick. You dont know that maybe there is an unknown element in the earths crust that may lead you to believe it is older than it really is. you just don't know, that is why it is a matter of faith that it is that old, faith that there are no other variables effecting the experiment. You can argue with the example but its logical lol. And the possibility of other variables needs to be factored into the possibility that it might not be right. So then if you dont and say that it IS this many years old then you have faith that there is no unknown that you don't know and dont question the unknown just like religious people dont question a lot of what happens. I know that all of the dating techniques are very accurate and very skillfully done.
Personally i dont question the dating methods. In the bible it says that a day could be like a thousand years to God. According to the bible time is irrelevant to such an abstract being, and sinc ethe writers were inspired if you so wish to believe then it means that the earth wasn't actually created in 6 days and people who try to say that it was literal are pathetic.
woot good stuff. i agree with everything except the faith in dating the earth part. no one know how old, no one ever will. but we know its more than what the bible dates. we know its in the billions, thats unquestionable. but there are so many variables that defy our current physics as well, should we factor them in as well? what we know, is concrete at the moment, but science is always altering; answer one question, ask 10 more.
and exactly, since in genesis, God does not explain a day, it could be anything, but in later books, and combined with historical fact, we did find out the dates of certain biblical events...just not creation myths
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
First, you have to say with absolute certainty that God does not exist. However, you cannot, because scientifically speaking, even though you have yet to see a God, that does not mean one does not exist. By your definition of science, gravity did not "exist" until Newton applied principles to it.
There is intelligence in religion and intelligence in science. In both areas, people work with the observed phenomena and make decisions based on those with intelligence. Just because someone sees the world through different eyes than you and senses/observes things in a different way from you does not make them unintelligent.
Give me the methods that they're dating the earth with and then I'll reason with you.
<script type="text/javascript">
var one = 1;
var two = 2;
one = two;
document.write(one);
</script>
Welcome to the world of simple programming.
Numbers are always correct in perspective. Humans make errors and often come out with the wrong numbers. Humans make programs that have incorrect strings (which are recognized by computers as binary, which are numbers) which lead to glitches, which happens in every program, because humans are not perfect, and no matter how many times you write a large program, you will never have the simplest, most compact, and perfect program.
Radio-carbon dating is only precise within the last 5,000 years since carbon cannot hold enough radiation to last more than that- something that is non-carbon, like uranium or plutonium, hold it for much longer. When scientists get output in billions of years, it's simply because they've up'ed the ratio variable based on what they think sounds correct. This is a very simple way of explaining it:
5,000 * 1 = normal ratio
5,000 * (age of strata fossil was found in, which in most cases is pre-dated in many years) = new ratio
applesoffury is stupid enough to take the calculations of a HUMAN who is IMPERFECT as perfect law. Sure, they may test something thousands of times (which they actually don't in most cases- for instance, when a new element is discovered, the initial experiment is only repeated a few times, and then is passed off as a new element), but look at something like a computer game- they're pre-tested by hundreds of beta testers. We have perfect games now! Wait a minute- that tree has a rock in its third branch! That's an error. Error can be decreased, but never eliminated with large-scale experiments. Eventually you will reach the point of diminishing return and simply pass of the best results you could get.
Intelligence is just the ability to manipulate objects or information in a way that is logical. Anyone that believes anything uses intelligence to reason through their teachings, scriptures, manifestos, laws, etc.
See the paragraph state earlier. No, wait, here it is:
Yep- I never disputed that numbers are perfect. They are what they are- they are their own definition and, thus, are infallible by themselves. Just as an apple is by its own definition an apple. What we're arguing here is that the HUMANS who calculate or make formulas or programs (which are just formulas put together to achieve higher-end results) are ERROR PRONE. Humans are not perfect, therefore, no matter how many times a given problem is re-analyzed, you are taking faith in that program's programmer or that scientists calculations as perfect and accurate. Numbers are perfect, calculations by humans are, by extension, error-prone.
And that was arrogant, but no, I took no offense.
umm putting words in my mouth? dont get angry now...
i never said science is perfect, i never said calculations are perfect, and i never said gravity never existed until newton, i never said much of that.
half-life of carbon, 5730 yrs to be close to exact. and i said that carbon dating has alot of guess work, but i also said it points us to the correct time frame, which you cannont argue is wrong. they use a system of dating earth sediments as well as celestial bodies to date the earth at billions of yrs old. the bibles date is much off. and you still dont understand scientific methods to conduct experiments and research. you keep saying humans have errors, which they do, but when the same experiment is repeated numerous times by more than one person, those errors get corrected, and the result is pretty accurate. so you say that we did accurately date the earth to be billions, instead of thousands of years old, as the bible claims, does that mean that religion has officially died? no. science has no effect on religion. and say we find an old scripture of, lets say, John, does that make religion correct? no. thus they are not the same. intelligence is clearly the wrong word to use i see now, i meant it as not in a stupid or smart way, but as in a way to think logically. as in you seriously cant believe that all the water in Egypt turned to blood.
lol and to give an analogy to a video game...lol. elements are pure in nature. once their isolated, they are an element. only a couple of experiments will suffice. but the ones not naturally occurring undergo a series of tests to determine their genuine-ness
your a computer programmer, im a science major. your call.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
if, its always an if. theres no point to even putting in an if on this one because it is out of reach, the human error will always be there so that will always be a factoring part of the equation, it is almost as absolute as the numbers themselves.
there you go again putting down scholars. not everyone is you i presume, not everyone balances equations wrong and makes those simple mistakes.
these people who do those calculation in sciences name, are learned people, and i repeat, people, as in more than 1. who do the same equation so many times that all errors in calculation are found, and corrected. the only error that can remain is instrument, and rounding errors, which we can say here that it is irreverent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
The human mind is something we use less than 10% of and generally more like 5%. It is your ego and your sense that the conscious mind is ultimately more powerful than the real force behind it that keeps you from making leaps within understanding. Meditation is a method of balancing out the two hemispheres, as people are with only a few fleeting moments of exception left or right brain controlled. You are a text book case of left brain thinking, for which I can find little logical doubt. That, in and of itself, leaves the other half largely falling short of anything near full capacity. You can base your arguments on whatever you like but the fact of the matter is your view point is severely limiting. I would know, I've thought about the question from both sides of the fence, something you might want to try some time. If you'd like you can try applying the scientific method to my little experiment and see how far you get. As far as my explanation of the mind, I doubt anyone on here wants to read pages and pages of information about the intricate workings of the mind.
oh but i love sports and art and music, maybe i have a severed corpus callosum?. as much as i love science and biology, i know little about psychology but i did take the intro class in college. it doesnt interest me is all i can say. did u even read any of my posts, i am a Christian. now go and see who is truly limited, you who opposes order and fact, supplying arguments about how scientists are ignorant, dumb, and incautious, while i say that science is something that can only be more accurate and give you examples that fall on deaf ears.
hr 64 bpm, breathes 5, blinks 1. done.
it wasn't really a flaw, i didn't say that it was right that those books were not in there i merely stated some of the reasons why certain books were excluded because i've read a few of them and can understand how they contradict common truths of that time. And several of them were not from the same apostles, more were not than were from them. If the books were inspired then obviously the ones puting it together would be inspired to decide. Its all a matter of relativity and a faith that there was a divine hand involved in its creation. To argue that certain books didn't make it because they just didn't want them there and they should not have the authority to do so is like leaving a (6/8) fraction unsimplified. Why dont we just get into the whole "the bible was written by man so it is flawed" argument so that i can say " it could have been inspired by God, its a matter of faith" Its all the same argument, and one you can't prove or disprove.
the lost gospel of peter was not included. and yes, alot of the rejected books are under suspicion, but you must remember that according to you, and me, humans are flawed, so to say there was divine intervention is contradictory. and yes, it is all a matter of faith. i have that faith, but i do not 'know'. i 'know' of science and math. and the latter is true 100% of the time whether you like it or not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
theres also the can He make 2 + 3 = 7 and can He break a promise? interesting stuff. philosophy is a really fun class after you get past the boring first few chapters
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
also there is a 'problem of evil as well' in the biblical texts.
and your analogy clearly undermines those 'facts' stated
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
in philosophy we discussed the philosophy of religion, and as you know, according to some monotheistic religions, God/etc is omnipotent, so one raises the question:
can God create a stone so large that even He cannot lift it?
really interesting, a paradox for sure.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
and they were pretty confused during the Salem witch trials...so i dont trust their mental state either...
i dont believe the bible mentions wings either on angels...but i dont comb through it daily so im not sure.
EDIT: the bible does give a description of angels. Revelation 4:8 describes seraphim and Ezekiel 10 describes Cherubs
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
but read what i said earlier
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
edit: oh nvm, i read more carefully, and i agree, hes a bit over the hill...
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
seriously though, you cant take the bible literally. angels are said to be messengers and guardians, those two descriptions have multiple meanings to multiple people. also in a more logical standpoint, when a 'miracle' or un-worldly event happens, and no one knows the cause because of knowledge limitations, the give a divine shading to it.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
i dont have a problem with any religion really. i just wanna know his stance.
o i didnt catch it then. we went on forever. mind you saying it again? and im sure you can, all religions are founded on some truth.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
what are you, a wiccan or something?
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
i know the concept and the proof, i can look that stuff up. i just cant decipher it. i meant i want to know how exactly.
lol almost got me
in a philosophically way of asking, do we ever know for sure, isnt everything in existence a matter of faith?
back to angels and the bible, did you know some scientist, yes, scientists claim that there is a scenario for the plagues that happened to the egyptians?
btw everyone, i voted yes, i do believe in angels. so for the guy calling me close-minded, i urge you to reconsider, why would i argue to prove that religion is a lie when i am religious? lol ?
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
umm thats not what i said still. those are my concepts in your view. dont do that, it makes you sound invalid.
well u didnt read my other post where i define faith did u? thats what ive been saying too, glad we agree.
i trust your dad. but this doesnt mean the earths date at this moment is wrong, it only supplies me with evidence that the scientists are right. defined radioactivity to a scientist wont make them change their mind. they already knew this as i did too, but they gave their explanation which is correct compared to any other alternatives. read my other post, but taking books from the bible, and comparing it with historical events that happened in the same era, conclude the age of the earth according to the bible.
theres more than one scientist working on the same subject. errors are eventually corrected.
i wish i really new all the workings of determining the actual age of the earth, i dont know because im neither geologist or astronomer. but i am certain the people doing this work are more than qualified.
calc was easy to understand and do, just not easy to take tests for lol.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
and exactly, since in genesis, God does not explain a day, it could be anything, but in later books, and combined with historical fact, we did find out the dates of certain biblical events...just not creation myths
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
i never said science is perfect, i never said calculations are perfect, and i never said gravity never existed until newton, i never said much of that.
half-life of carbon, 5730 yrs to be close to exact. and i said that carbon dating has alot of guess work, but i also said it points us to the correct time frame, which you cannont argue is wrong. they use a system of dating earth sediments as well as celestial bodies to date the earth at billions of yrs old. the bibles date is much off. and you still dont understand scientific methods to conduct experiments and research. you keep saying humans have errors, which they do, but when the same experiment is repeated numerous times by more than one person, those errors get corrected, and the result is pretty accurate. so you say that we did accurately date the earth to be billions, instead of thousands of years old, as the bible claims, does that mean that religion has officially died? no. science has no effect on religion. and say we find an old scripture of, lets say, John, does that make religion correct? no. thus they are not the same. intelligence is clearly the wrong word to use i see now, i meant it as not in a stupid or smart way, but as in a way to think logically. as in you seriously cant believe that all the water in Egypt turned to blood.
lol and to give an analogy to a video game...lol. elements are pure in nature. once their isolated, they are an element. only a couple of experiments will suffice. but the ones not naturally occurring undergo a series of tests to determine their genuine-ness
your a computer programmer, im a science major. your call.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
these people who do those calculation in sciences name, are learned people, and i repeat, people, as in more than 1. who do the same equation so many times that all errors in calculation are found, and corrected. the only error that can remain is instrument, and rounding errors, which we can say here that it is irreverent.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
hr 64 bpm, breathes 5, blinks 1. done. the lost gospel of peter was not included. and yes, alot of the rejected books are under suspicion, but you must remember that according to you, and me, humans are flawed, so to say there was divine intervention is contradictory. and yes, it is all a matter of faith. i have that faith, but i do not 'know'. i 'know' of science and math. and the latter is true 100% of the time whether you like it or not.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."