Can God love? (Part 1)
+15
agoodman
tlttf
astra
trevorw2539
Ivan
astradt1
blueturando
sickchip
polyglide
Phil Hornby
Adele Carlyon
bobby
Shirina
oftenwrong
Greatest I am
19 posters
Page 13 of 25
Page 13 of 25 • 1 ... 8 ... 12, 13, 14 ... 19 ... 25
Can God love? (Part 1)
First topic message reminder :
Can God love?
We are told that the mythical bible God is love or the epitome of love.
Archetypal Jesus said that we would know his people by the love, deeds and actions they showed others.
Jesus gave us examples of the deeds and works. Feed the poor, love all our neighbours, do not sin and many others.
Love then, seems to Jesus, to be something that must be shown by deeds, actions and works to be alive and true love. Love, like faith, without works is dead. Both St. James and Jesus agree on this.
It follows then that if God is not doing something to show this love then the love for man expressed in scriptures is wrong and God cannot love.
You are in the image of God. When you love someone you show them that love by works and deeds. This is how the recipient of that love knows it is there and that allows for reciprocity. You will agree that without reciprocity, true love cannot exist between two individuals. We must do things for each other for true love to exist.
Imagine what those you love would think if you never did anything to express your love. Imagine what you would think of the love of others towards you if they never did anything to show they loved you. See what I mean. Love always must have deeds to be real and true and reciprocity must be at play.
Love then has no choice but to be expressed if it is true love.
We are told that God loved his son so much that he planned to have him sacrificed even before the earth was created. This human sacrifice or any other human sacrifice, voluntary or not, is immoral and the notion that it is good to sacrifice an innocent victim to give the guilty believers a free ride into heaven is a completely self-gratifying notion and is completely immoral. One does not show love for someone by having them sacrificed for the sins of others when God himself stated that we are all responsible for our own salvation and cannot put that responsibility of the shoulders of a scapegoat Jesus.
Does love need deeds and works to be expressed?
Have you seen God express his love for us lately?
Regards
DL
These following speak to this issue if you wish to view them.
[youtube]
Can God love?
We are told that the mythical bible God is love or the epitome of love.
Archetypal Jesus said that we would know his people by the love, deeds and actions they showed others.
Jesus gave us examples of the deeds and works. Feed the poor, love all our neighbours, do not sin and many others.
Love then, seems to Jesus, to be something that must be shown by deeds, actions and works to be alive and true love. Love, like faith, without works is dead. Both St. James and Jesus agree on this.
It follows then that if God is not doing something to show this love then the love for man expressed in scriptures is wrong and God cannot love.
You are in the image of God. When you love someone you show them that love by works and deeds. This is how the recipient of that love knows it is there and that allows for reciprocity. You will agree that without reciprocity, true love cannot exist between two individuals. We must do things for each other for true love to exist.
Imagine what those you love would think if you never did anything to express your love. Imagine what you would think of the love of others towards you if they never did anything to show they loved you. See what I mean. Love always must have deeds to be real and true and reciprocity must be at play.
Love then has no choice but to be expressed if it is true love.
We are told that God loved his son so much that he planned to have him sacrificed even before the earth was created. This human sacrifice or any other human sacrifice, voluntary or not, is immoral and the notion that it is good to sacrifice an innocent victim to give the guilty believers a free ride into heaven is a completely self-gratifying notion and is completely immoral. One does not show love for someone by having them sacrificed for the sins of others when God himself stated that we are all responsible for our own salvation and cannot put that responsibility of the shoulders of a scapegoat Jesus.
Does love need deeds and works to be expressed?
Have you seen God express his love for us lately?
Regards
DL
These following speak to this issue if you wish to view them.
[youtube]
Greatest I am- Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
A scientist, on the basis of much comparative anatomy and physiology, might hypothesize that, in the distant past, mammals evolved from reptiles. This would have testable consequences for the present state of the system (earth's surface with the geological strata in it and the animal and plant species living on it) in the form of reptile-mammal transition fossils that should exist, in addition to other necessary features of the DNA, developmental systems, and so forth, of the present-day reptiles and mammals.
What about repeatability? It is the observations that must be repeatable, if only to establish their validity independently of any one person's authority. This does not mean that the hypothetical mechanism or the phenomenon concerned must be repeatable or reproducible. In the experimental laboratory where the phenomena being studied are short-lived and transient, it is usually necessary to reproduce them in order to repeat the observations. But scientists must wait for the recurrence of natural phenomena—such as eclipses, earthquakes, seasonally recurring biological phenomena, and so forth. Yet, if a phenomenon is a stable, more or less permanent long-term condition, observations may be repeated anytime. A geologist may return to a geological formation to repeat or make new observations, or an anatomist or paleontologist may reexamine a museum specimen, either corroborating or refuting someone else's previous observations. Clearly, then, a hypothesis postulating a unique past event is scientific—as long as it has observable consequences for the present that can be repeatedly verified by any observer.
Thus we may conclude (as Popper did) that evolutionary theories or historical hypotheses about origins are no different than other scientific theories as far as their logical features are concerned and are just as falsifiable as hypotheses in the form of general laws and theories.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:
Texas,
It seems you have a problem with any scientific evidence that contradicts the Genesis myth…
I have slightly altered your text that I might address your concern. Altered text is underlined below.
Tosh wrote:
It seems you have a problem with any scientific evidence that contradicts the Genesis account…
I have a problem with any scientific evidence that contradicts Big Bang.
Who-What-When-Where-How-Why exposition and comparison of Genesis 1:1 and Big Bang:
1. Genesis 1:1, brief exposition:
English, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Hebrew, “B’r’shythe bara Elohim et hashamayim ve’et ha’arets”.
- Who: Elohim, power, plural of Eloah, power, by inference, incomprehensible, immeasurable power.
- What, bara, created, by inference, created from nothing, et hashamayim ve’et ha’arets, the heavens (everything other than the earth), and the earth (everything other than the heavens), in total, everything, thus, bara… et hashamayim ve’et ha’arets, created everything from nothing.
- When: B’r’shythe, the beginning, at the beginning, at the point of beginning, at the beginning point of everything, when everything begins.
- Where: B’r’shythe, the beginning, at the beginning, at the point of beginning, at the beginning point of everything, where everything begins.
- Why: Not addressed by Genesis 1:1 (addressed by Genesis 1:2 and following).
- How: Not addressed by Genesis 1:1.
2. Big Bang, brief exposition:
Incomprehensible, immeasurable power, at/from “the singularity”, explodes the universe into existence from nothing.
- Who: Incomprehensible, immeasurable power.
- What, exploded everything (the university) into existence from nothing.
- When: “the singularity”, the beginning, at the beginning, at the point of beginning, at the beginning point of everything, (b) when everything begins.
- Where: “the singularity”, the beginning, at the beginning, at the point of beginning, at the beginning point of everything, where everything begins.
- Why: Not addressed by Big Bang.
- How: Addressed by Big Bang data set.
Feel free to have a problem with Big Bang if you so desire.
Tosh wrote:
… your selection process is rather unscientific.
I have engaged in no “selection process.”
Tosh wrote:
I am amused you have appointed yourself as a global authority on science and its methodology…
I am amused that you have appointed yourself as global monitor as to what I might or might not have appointed myself.
Tosh wrote:
… unfortunately for you and your case, your subjective perceptions are not evidence or proof of any scientific shortcomings.
Unfortunately for you and your speculative, conjectural ideology, your words hereon do not comprise proof of your speculative, conjectural ideology.
Tosh wrote:
Anytime you wish to disclose your scientific objections to the use of fossils and their dating methods, I will be all ears.
Anytime I have scientific objections to other people looking at bones in dated dirt, I will be all mouth.
Tosh wrote:
I hope it contains more evidentiary material than your objections to macro-evolution and order on earth.
I pray that your future presentations of your speculative, conjectural ideology (macro-evolutionism) contain evidentiary material beyond bones in dated dirt, which prove that there are bones in dated dirt, and nothing more, and which are evidence of appearance and disappearance of species, and nothing more.
I also pray that your future presentations of your speculative, conjectural ideology does not again posit that evidentiary material of micro-evolution, a proven fact (we know what it is) and theory (we pretty much know how it works), is evidence of macro-evolution, still unproven after all these years. The leap of faith from micro-evolution to macro-evolution is a prodigious leap indeed. Had Great Britain’s Olympic high jumpers, long jumpers, and pole vaulters been able to achieve such mighty leaps, the island nation would be awash in gold, silver, and bronze.
Tosh wrote:
There was no incontrovertible evidence of a flat earth…
There is no incontrovertible evidence of macro-evolution.
Tosh wrote:
… it was an optical illusion, a subjective perception that simply highlighted the need for an objective scientific method…
Macro-evolution is a mental illusion, a subjective conjecture that highlights the need for applying objective scientific standards to speculative, conjectural ideologies.
Tosh wrote:
… the very method you reject when the results contradict your subjective perceptions.
These are the very method I embrace. These are the very methods I allow to shape my perceptions that they might adhere to truth. These are the very methods that reveal macro-evolution as unproven, speculative conjecture.
Tosh wrote:
Galileo would have loved you.
I hope not. He wasn’t pretty, and he didn’t smell good.
Tosh wrote:
I must remind you that you have not provided one shred of evidence or proof that the scientific conclusions you oppose are false…
I have slightly altered your text that I might address your statement. Altered text is underlined below.
Tosh wrote:
I must remind you that you have not provided one shred of evidence or proof that the speculative conjecture you dispute is false…
I must remind you that you have not provided one shred of evidence or proof that the speculative conjecture you accept and propagate is true.
Tosh wrote:
… the only opinion worth its salt on this matter is the scientific consensus…
Truth is truth independent of opinions or consensus.
Tosh wrote:
… they happen to be qualified to make these judgements.
Professor Hoyle and his fellow steady staters were considered by themselves to be qualified to make their judgments.
Tosh wrote:
It matters not a jot what you consider to be evidence or proof or empirical…
It matters more than a to me that proof of macro-evolution is nonexistent.
Tosh wrote:
… nobody appointed you God of science…
Nobody appointed you creator of truth.
Tosh wrote:
… what matters is what the scientific body accept as evidence or proof or empirical.
What matters is truth.
Tosh wrote:
Would you like me to post again the percentage of qualified scientists who consider Common Descent a fact…
I would like you to post that your speculative, conjectural ideology of macro-evolutionism is truth.
Tosh wrote:
… would you like the scientific consensus on dating fossils embedded in rocks ?
Feel free to post “the scientific consensus on dating fossils embedded in rocks” if you so desire. If you do so, perhaps I shall point out that bones in dated dirt are proof of bones in dated dirt and nothing else.
Tosh wrote:
Texas, I will burst a rib if you start talking about flood geology.
Feel free to present that topic if you so desire.
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
What planet are you on Shirina.
The worlds economy is on the point of calapse, even in the so called super rich oil states, people are leaving the gravy train being over and thousands are fearful for the future.
Even suicides are becoming a daily occurance and both America along with Great Britain AND MANY OTHER COUNTRIES ARE in dire straights.
Where on earth you get your figures regarding crime from I do not know, there is a murder or serious crimes reported daily and this has never previously been the case.
Crime figurers are a laugh, crimes previously recorded are now let off with a caution and they are not counted.
Wake up and see the light.
The worlds economy is on the point of calapse, even in the so called super rich oil states, people are leaving the gravy train being over and thousands are fearful for the future.
Even suicides are becoming a daily occurance and both America along with Great Britain AND MANY OTHER COUNTRIES ARE in dire straights.
Where on earth you get your figures regarding crime from I do not know, there is a murder or serious crimes reported daily and this has never previously been the case.
Crime figurers are a laugh, crimes previously recorded are now let off with a caution and they are not counted.
Wake up and see the light.
polyglide- Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
This is a little story for all concerned and if the morals involved are not apparent to you then I will explain.
A young man of little education but with a firm appreciation of nature was going fishing as he had done since childhood.
On the way to the river he met a gentleman who was also going fishing and who had with him what seemed like enough equipment to last a life time, the young man had the same rod, a can of worms and the same reel he had used all his life
As they walked towards the river the gent explained that he had read everything regarding fishing and was indeed an expert and could recite word for word many things regarding the sport that had been written in the past.
The young man thought by the time he got to the river the expert would have caught all the fish.
However, the gent having chosen where to fish the young man walked on to a place he always used and within a couple of minutes was fishing away and catching fish after fish so much so that he ran out of worms and decided to call it a day.
On passing the expert he noticed a whole lot of tackle spread out along the bank and the expert looking perplexed he asked how many fish he had caught and the expert expained that he had just bought a new real and found he could not work out the way it was supposed to be used and he had not actually started fishing.
With a wry smile the young man went on his way and thanked the Lord he was not an expert.
A young man of little education but with a firm appreciation of nature was going fishing as he had done since childhood.
On the way to the river he met a gentleman who was also going fishing and who had with him what seemed like enough equipment to last a life time, the young man had the same rod, a can of worms and the same reel he had used all his life
As they walked towards the river the gent explained that he had read everything regarding fishing and was indeed an expert and could recite word for word many things regarding the sport that had been written in the past.
The young man thought by the time he got to the river the expert would have caught all the fish.
However, the gent having chosen where to fish the young man walked on to a place he always used and within a couple of minutes was fishing away and catching fish after fish so much so that he ran out of worms and decided to call it a day.
On passing the expert he noticed a whole lot of tackle spread out along the bank and the expert looking perplexed he asked how many fish he had caught and the expert expained that he had just bought a new real and found he could not work out the way it was supposed to be used and he had not actually started fishing.
With a wry smile the young man went on his way and thanked the Lord he was not an expert.
polyglide- Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
polyglide, you do make me laugh.
She is on planet Earth wth me, all this crime is the work of Satan, time for an apocalypse..............after the Ryder Cup of course.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xjpm5vbNGdE
What planet are you on Shirina.
She is on planet Earth wth me, all this crime is the work of Satan, time for an apocalypse..............after the Ryder Cup of course.
Steven Pinker on How Violence is Actually in Decline in the Long Term
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xjpm5vbNGdE
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
With a wry smile the young man went on his way and thanked the Lord he was not an expert.
Religion thrives on ignorance. It always has and it always will.
Even suicides are becoming a daily occurance
I wonder how many of those suicides are a result of religious oppression and bullying. We're sure seeing a lot of suicides here in the US for that reason, especially young gay folks being tormented by religiously-inspired hatred.
The worlds economy is on the point of calapse
The world's economy, which is led by the United States, is in dire straits due largely to the Protestant Christian work ethic -- if you can't work, you don't eat. It isn't a coincidence, Polyglide, that nations with the highest standard of living and the lowest wealth and income disparities are predominantly atheistic.
Crime figurers are a laugh, crimes previously recorded are now let off with a caution and they are not counted.
Religion also thrives on denial. If the facts don't say what you want them to say, then, well, they must be wrong or deliberately falsified.
Shirina- Former Administrator
- Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Texas,
Still waiting.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, The Scientific Case for Common Descent.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Still waiting.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, The Scientific Case for Common Descent.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
I have a problem with any scientific evidence that contradicts Big Bang.
So do I, unfortunately for you science does not conclude the evidence for Common Descent contradicts BB, and let me repeat, science is the authorative body on scientific matters, you and your empirical blindfold are not.
I have engaged in no “selection process. I am amused that you have appointed yourself as global monitor as to what I might or might not have appointed myself. ”
Incorrect, science only allocates the term " theory" and " fact " to conclusions that are supported by an incontrovertible body of evidence, you select which theories are valid or not, your selection process is by definition unscientific. The evidence to support my conclusion is empirical and incontrovertible, you have appointed yourself above and beyond the scientific consensus and you are not even a scientist, how does that work Texas my old friend ?
Science concludes life on earth or Common Descent does not contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics for the reasons previously stated, now do you accept this or not ?
Science concludes transitional fossils are evidence of macroevolution, they do not conclude as you do that these are all seperate species created by Yahweh, appearing and disappearing at random.
The reasons behind this conclusion my friend is because these transitional fossils just happen to be found in the exact chronological order as predicted by macrevolution, there are no birds before dinosaur/birds. etc etc, not one fossil out of evolutionary sequence.
We have living taxa that still mutate back into this transitional form( Atavism), ever see a whale with a leg and toes and all 5-6 week human embryos have a developing tail vertebrae.
The genetic evidence confirms exactly the fossil record:
FIRST GENETIC EVIDENCE UNCOVERED OF HOW MAJOR CHANGES
IN BODY SHAPES OCCURRED DURING EARLY ANIMAL EVOLUTION
Biologists at the University of California, San Diego have uncovered the first genetic evidence that explains how large-scale alterations to body plans were accomplished during the early evolution of animals.
In an advance online publication February 6 by Nature of a paper scheduled to appear in Nature, the scientists show how mutations in regulatory genes that guide the embryonic development of crustaceans and fruit flies allowed aquatic crustacean-like arthropods, with limbs on every segment of their bodies, to evolve 400 million years ago into a radically different body plan: the terrestrial six-legged insects.
The achievement is a landmark in evolutionary biology, not only because it shows how new animal body plans could arise from a simple genetic mutation, but because it effectively answers a major criticism creationists had long leveled against evolution—the absence of a genetic mechanism that could permit animals to introduce radical new body designs.
“The problem for a long time has been over this issue of macroevolution,” says William McGinnis, a professor in UCSD’s Division of Biology who headed the study. “How can evolution possibly introduce big changes into an animal’s body shape and still generate a living animal? Creationists have argued that any big jump would result in a dead animal that wouldn’t be able to perpetuate itself. And until now, no one’s been able to demonstrate how you could do that at the genetic level with specific instructions in the genome.”
I have only scratched the surface from the link I provided to you.
If you have a scientific mind that seeks the truth then read it and tell me your objections.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Last edited by Tosh on Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Texas,
It seems your standards of proof are actually irrational and unscientific.
The primary function of science is to demonstrate the existence of phenomena that cannot be observed directly. Science is not needed to show us things we can see with our own eyes. Direct observation is not only unnecessary in science; direct observation is in fact usually impossible for the things that really matter. In fact, the most important discoveries of science have only be inferred via indirect observation. Familiar examples of unobservable scientific discoveries are atoms, electrons, viruses, bacteria, germs, radio-waves, X-rays, ultraviolet light, energy, entropy, enthalpy, solar fusion, genes, protein enzymes, and the DNA double-helix. The round earth was not observed directly by humans until 1961, yet this counterintuitive concept had been considered a scientific fact for over 2000 years. The Copernican hypothesis that the earth orbits the sun has been acknowledged virtually ever since the time of Galileo, even though no one has ever observed the process to this day. All of these "invisible" phenomena were elucidated using the scientific method of inference. When the term "evidence" is used in this article, it is used strictly with respect to this scientific method.
The scientific method is a program for research which comprises four main steps. In practice these steps follow more of a logical order than a chronological one:
1.Make observations.
2.Form a testable, unifying hypothesis to explain these observations.
3.Deduce predictions from the hypothesis.
4.Search for confirmations of the predictions;
if the predictions are contradicted by empirical observation, go back to step (2).
Examination of the scientific method reveals that science involves much more than naive empiricism. Research that only involves simple observation, repetition, and measurement is not sufficient to count as science. These three techniques are merely part of the process of making observations (#1 in the steps outlined above). Astrologers, wiccans, alchemists, and shamans all observe, repeat, and measure — but they do not practice science. Clearly, what distinguishes science is the way in which observations are interpreted, tested, and used.
It seems your standards of proof are actually irrational and unscientific.
Last edited by Tosh on Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.
Darwins Theory of Evolution states Common Descent which includes macroevolution.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:
Texas,
Still waiting.
Scot,
Still waiting for what?
Tosh wrote:
It seems your standards of proof are actually irrational and unscientific.
It seems that “my” standards of proof (I don’t own them) are the standards of proof which are required of micro-evolution (proven), Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity (proven), Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (proven), and the Big Bang Theory (proven, although you seem not to believe it).
Tosh wrote:
Darwins Theory of Evolution states Common Descent which includes macroevolution.
I’ve slightly altered your text that I might respond to your assertion. Altered text is underlined below.
With RockOnBrother’s alterations, Tosh wrote:
Darwin’s speculative conjecture of macro-evolution states Common Descent which includes macroevolution.
Darwin’s speculative conjecture of macro-evolution remains unproven.
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Texas,
I have already rebutted this misconception, if you are just going to ignore my posts and regurgitate the same fallacies then it becomes apparent you are not interested in truth or serious debate.
Your standard of proof for Common Descent is not the same as the scientific consensus, they consider the standard of proof sufficent for ALL evolution to give it ALL theory status. The theory of Common Descent includes macro-micro evolution, there is no such thing as the Theory of micro-evolution, it is a creationists invention.
Are you suggesting all of the following are pure conjecture because they were not proven in the same manner as gravity ?
Let me repeat you and your creationist friends have no authority to split evolution or the theory, and declare which is proven or not, you do not have the authority to insist Common Descent must be proven in the same emprical manner as Relativity or anything else. Nobody who is an ex-physics student really believes that naive empiricism is the only acceptable proof of a theory, there are parts of any Theory that can be tested or proved using many different methods and types of evidence, if you do not know this then you have forgot your ex-physics lessons.
I’ve slightly altered your text that I might respond to your assertion. Altered text is underlined below.
I don't care, your satisfaction is not what counts, it only has to satisfy the scientific consensus, and they are so satisfied with the evidence they have given Common Descent Evolution, Theory status.
You may believe what you want but please don't try and give your opinions any scientific credence, they are as imaginary as your creationist beliefs. The scientific consensus considers the evidence for evolution so overwhelming they consider the modern synthesis a FACT, and denying this does not alter the fact.
End of Debate, we will have to agree to disagree,and let the jury decide.
It seems that “my” standards of proof (I don’t own them) are the standards of proof which are required of micro-evolution (proven), Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity (proven), Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (proven), and the Big Bang Theory (proven, although you seem not to believe it).
I have already rebutted this misconception, if you are just going to ignore my posts and regurgitate the same fallacies then it becomes apparent you are not interested in truth or serious debate.
Your standard of proof for Common Descent is not the same as the scientific consensus, they consider the standard of proof sufficent for ALL evolution to give it ALL theory status. The theory of Common Descent includes macro-micro evolution, there is no such thing as the Theory of micro-evolution, it is a creationists invention.
Are you suggesting all of the following are pure conjecture because they were not proven in the same manner as gravity ?
In fact, the most important discoveries of science have only be inferred via indirect observation. Familiar examples of unobservable scientific discoveries are atoms, electrons, viruses, bacteria, germs, radio-waves, X-rays, ultraviolet light, energy, entropy, enthalpy, solar fusion, genes, protein enzymes, and the DNA double-helix.
Let me repeat you and your creationist friends have no authority to split evolution or the theory, and declare which is proven or not, you do not have the authority to insist Common Descent must be proven in the same emprical manner as Relativity or anything else. Nobody who is an ex-physics student really believes that naive empiricism is the only acceptable proof of a theory, there are parts of any Theory that can be tested or proved using many different methods and types of evidence, if you do not know this then you have forgot your ex-physics lessons.
.Darwin’s speculative conjecture of macro-evolution remains unproven.
I’ve slightly altered your text that I might respond to your assertion. Altered text is underlined below.
.Darwin’s accepted and established Theory of Evolution (including macro-evolution) remains unproven to my satisfaction.
I don't care, your satisfaction is not what counts, it only has to satisfy the scientific consensus, and they are so satisfied with the evidence they have given Common Descent Evolution, Theory status.
You may believe what you want but please don't try and give your opinions any scientific credence, they are as imaginary as your creationist beliefs. The scientific consensus considers the evidence for evolution so overwhelming they consider the modern synthesis a FACT, and denying this does not alter the fact.
End of Debate, we will have to agree to disagree,and let the jury decide.
Last edited by Tosh on Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
An empty hypothesis is not a " null " hypothesis.
A hypothesis that states anything or everything counts as evidence for the hypothesis and nothing counts as evidence against the hypothesis, is EMPTY of any scientific content.
The God hypothesis is empty of any scientific content.
A hypothesis that states anything or everything counts as evidence for the hypothesis and nothing counts as evidence against the hypothesis, is EMPTY of any scientific content.
The God hypothesis is empty of any scientific content.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
hypothesis
Definition
1. A supposition or explanation (theory) that is provisionally accepted in order to interpret certain events or phenomena, and to provide guidance for further investigation. A hypothesis may be proven correct or wrong, and must be capable of refutation. If it remains unrefuted by facts, it is said to be verified or corroborated.
2. Statistics: An assumption about certain characteristics of a population. If it specifies values for every parameter of a population, it is called a simple hypothesis; if not, a composite hypothesis. If it attempts to nullify the difference between two sample means (by suggesting that the difference is of no statistical significance), it is called a null hypothesis.
Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/hypothesis.html#ixzz252uz6NHf
oftenwrong- Sage
- Posts : 12062
Join date : 2011-10-08
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Karl Popper:
A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
I am wondering what Darwin's Theory of Evolution has to do the Can God Love title of this thread???????
I feels like it's starting to mirror the Evidence for the existence of God Thread........
I feels like it's starting to mirror the Evidence for the existence of God Thread........
astradt1- Moderator
- Posts : 966
Join date : 2011-10-08
Age : 69
Location : East Midlands
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
I am wondering what Darwin's Theory of Evolution has to do the Can God Love title of this thread???????
Love evolved from our social primate genes, this evidence contradicts the existence of a God of love.
Darwin killed God, all of God, the answers to all our questions lie not in theology and metaphysics but in evolutionary psychology and our genes.
Creationists are not delusional because their minds are in love with reality.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:
Texas,I have already rebutted this misconception…It seems that “my” standards of proof (I don’t own them) are the standards of proof which are required of micro-evolution (proven), Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity (proven), Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (proven), and the Big Bang Theory (proven, although you seem not to believe it).
You have not rebutted this truth. You have repeatedly attempted to rebut this truth. As truth is non-rebuttable, your repeated attempts to rebut truth have been repeatedly unsuccessful.
For ease of understanding, truth is reposted below.
RockOnBrother wrote:
Re: Can God love?
by RockOnBrother on Thu 30 Aug 2012 - 4:02
It seems that “my” standards of proof (I don’t own them) are the standards of proof which are required of micro-evolution (proven), Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity (proven), Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (proven), and the Big Bang Theory (proven, although you seem not to believe it).
As an added item, your evident disbelief of Big Bang is interesting.
Tosh wrote:
… if you are just going to ignore my posts…
I have not ignored your posts
Re: Can God love?
by RockOnBrother on Tue 21 Aug 2012 - 19:44
Re: Can God love?
by RockOnBrother on Fri 24 Aug 2012 - 17:08
Re: Can God love?
by RockOnBrother on Fri 24 Aug 2012 - 23:04
Re: Can God love?
by RockOnBrother on Sat 25 Aug 2012 - 16:51
Re: Can God love?
by RockOnBrother on Sat 25 Aug 2012 - 18:43
Re: Can God love?
by RockOnBrother on Sat 25 Aug 2012 - 20:03
Re: Can God love?
by RockOnBrother on Sat 25 Aug 2012 - 20:07
Re: Can God love?
by RockOnBrother on Sun 26 Aug 2012 - 21:57
Re: Can God love?
by RockOnBrother on Sun 26 Aug 2012 - 22:25
Re: Can God love?
by RockOnBrother on Mon 27 Aug 2012 - 21:57
Re: Can God love?
by RockOnBrother on Wed 29 Aug 2012 - 10:20
Re: Can God love?
by RockOnBrother on Thu 30 Aug 2012 - 4:02
Tosh wrote:
… if you are just going to… regurgitate the same fallacies…
I have “regurgitated nothing.
Tosh wrote:
… it becomes apparent you are not interested in truth…
Truth: The General Theory of Relativity is proven. Truth: The Special Theory of Relativity is proven. Truth: The Big Bang Theory is proven. Truth: The Theory of Micro-evolution is proven.
Truth: The speculative, conjectural supposition of macro-evolution remains unproven.
Tosh wrote:
Your standard of proof for Common Descent is not the same as the scientific consensus, they consider the standard of proof sufficent for ALL evolution to give it ALL theory status.
I don’t own a standard of proof. Perhaps you might research the rigorous proofs required of general relativity, special relativity, big bang, and micro-evolution before each was labeled “Theory” to discover the standard of proof to which I attempt to adhere.
Tosh wrote:
The theory of Common Descent includes macro-micro evolution…
Macro-evolution is a speculative, conjectural ideology.
Tosh wrote:
… there is no such thing as the Theory of micro-evolution
Truth: The Theory of Micro-evolution is proven.
Tosh wrote:
… it is a creationists invention.
Whoever “creationists” might be, they must be humans. Humans do not and cannot invent truth.
Tosh wrote:
Are you suggesting all of the following are pure conjecture because they were not proven in the same manner as gravity ?
I am stating that macro-evolution is speculative conjecture because macro-evolution is unproven.
Tosh wrote:
Let me repeat you and your creationist friends have no authority to split evolution or the theory…
Macro-evolutionists/Darwinists have no authority to invent, alter, contravene, and/or destroy truth. Truth: Macro-evolution is unproven.
… you do not have the authority to insist Common Descent must be proven in the same emprical manner as Relativity or anything else.
[/quote]
Macro-evolutionists/Darwinists do not have the authority to render the unproven proven by fiat. Macro-evolution is unproven.
Tosh wrote:
… naive empiricism…
I was unaware that empiricism is naïve.
Tosh wrote:
… there are parts of any Theory that can be tested or proved…
There is no part of macro-evolution that can be tested or proven.
Tosh wrote:I’ve slightly altered your text that I might respond to your assertion. Altered text is underlined below.Darwin’s speculative conjecture of macro-evolution remains unproven.I don't care…Darwin’s accepted and established Theory of Evolution (including macro-evolution) remains unproven to my satisfaction.
I’ve restored my text.
RockOnBrother wrote:
Darwin’s speculative conjecture of macro-evolution remains unproven.
I care.
Tosh wrote:
… your satisfaction is not what counts…
My satisfaction counts to me.
Tosh wrote:
… it only has to satisfy the scientific consensus, and they are so satisfied…
The mariner consensus aboard the Pinta, Niña, and Santa Maria, mid Atlantic 1492, were so satisfied that flat earth was truth that they almost committed munity.
Tosh wrote:
… they [your opinions] are as imaginary as your creationist beliefs.
I’ve altered your text (alterations underlined below) that I might address your assertion.
With RockOnBrother’s alterations, Tosh wrote:
… they [your opinions] are as imaginary as your knowledge of YHVH Elohim.
My knowledge of YHVH Elohim, as limited by my human (ha adama) understanding of existence as it might be, is absolutely unassailable; this, by your logic, my opinions are equally unassailable. Thank you for the compliment.
Tosh wrote:
The scientific consensus considers the evidence for evolution so overwhelming they consider the modern synthesis a FACT…
The mariner consensus aboard the Pinta, Niña, and Santa Maria considered the evidence for flat earth so overwhelming that they considered the inevitability of falling off the edge of the earth should they have continued a fact.
Last edited by RockOnBrother on Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:45 pm; edited 1 time in total
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:
Sorry Texas, Too Long Didn't Read.
I posted Thursday 30 Aug 2012 at 22:41; you posted Thursday 30 Aug 2012 at 22:44. Unless one is “responding” to a “sound” bite, it is probably difficult to compose and post a “response” within three minutes.
Sorry, Scot, I don’t post “sound bites.” Usually, I suspect, it takes a bit more than three minutes to read my posts, compose substantive responses thereto, and post such responses on the forum.
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
I am unsure as how to fairly assess a mind that inhabits a reality where the global scientific community in the 21 st century, is the equivalent of flat earth believers from our ignorant past. I know the brain likes to make patterns but the objective scientific method did not exist back in them good old religious days, the subjective method of enquiry was Yahweh did it.
What is even more strange, this same mind accepts the authority and uses the conclusions of the global scientific consensus, using the same scientific methods he objects to. This mind accepts without hesitation the very same methods because the results do not contradict its bronze age myth.
What is the most probable, the global scientific consensus in the 21st century is wrong about evolution, or just one of the thousands of creation myths from the bronze age is true.
Do the math has never been so apt.
This kind of thinking can be at best desribed as inconsistent and at worst irrational.
Rationality is about thinking proportionaly, science is all based on probabilities.
What is even more strange, this same mind accepts the authority and uses the conclusions of the global scientific consensus, using the same scientific methods he objects to. This mind accepts without hesitation the very same methods because the results do not contradict its bronze age myth.
What is the most probable, the global scientific consensus in the 21st century is wrong about evolution, or just one of the thousands of creation myths from the bronze age is true.
Do the math has never been so apt.
This kind of thinking can be at best desribed as inconsistent and at worst irrational.
Rationality is about thinking proportionaly, science is all based on probabilities.
Last edited by Tosh on Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:28 pm; edited 2 times in total
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Fortunately I do not have to prove Common Descent is the truth and " God did it " is false, science has proven it for me.
Unfortunately for some, they cannot prove God did it nor can they prove evolution is false.
This is not rocket science here, you do not have to be Einstein to judge the most likely cause.
Unfortunately for some, they cannot prove God did it nor can they prove evolution is false.
This is not rocket science here, you do not have to be Einstein to judge the most likely cause.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Scot,
At such time as you substantively address the substantive content of my past several messages (excluding this one and the one immediately preceding), I’ll possibly respond.
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
.At such time as you substantively address the substantive content of my past several messages (excluding this one and the one immediately preceding), I’ll possibly respond.
Texas,
There is nothing to respond to that I have not done so on one or more occassions, you may find continually repeating yourself an entertaining past time and you may even be deluded into thinking it is effective, however this fine brain of mine consider otherwise, this fine mind sees only deflection and evasion.
As I said my friend, we must agree to disagree and let our readers decide, I have put forward my case and you yours, no point in boring our audience by repeating the same arguments.
If you have anything novel to say then by all means fire away, if not the debate is over and let the vote counting start,
Your chances are as thin as the evidence that Yahweh created humans from dust and bone.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:
Texas,
There is nothing to respond to that I have not done so on one or more occassions, you may find continually repeating yourself an entertaining past time and you may even be deluded into thinking it is effective, however this fine brain of mine consider otherwise, this fine mind sees only deflection and evasion.
As I said my friend, we must agree to disagree and let our readers decide, I have put forward my case and you yours, no point in boring our audience by repeating the same arguments.
If you have anything novel to say then by all means fire away, if not the debate is over and let the vote counting start,
Your chances are as thin as the evidence that Yahweh created humans from dust and bone.
Nothing which meets response criterion. I am unaware of Yahweh.
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Summary of the modern synthesis
The modern synthesis bridged the gap between experimental geneticists and naturalists, and between paleontologists. It states that:
1.All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists.
2.Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes regulated by natural selection accumulate over long periods. Discontinuities amongst species (or other taxa) are explained as originating gradually through geographical separation and extinction (not saltation).[clarification needed]
3.Natural selection is by far the main mechanism of change; even slight advantages are important when continued. The object of selection is the phenotype in its surrounding environment.
4.The role of genetic drift is equivocal. Though strongly supported initially by Dobzhansky, it was downgraded later as results from ecological genetics were obtained.
5.Thinking in terms of populations, rather than individuals, is primary: the genetic diversity existing in natural populations is a key factor in evolution. The strength of natural selection in the wild is greater than previously expected; the effect of ecological factors such as niche occupation and the significance of barriers to gene flow are all important.
6.In palaeontology, the ability to explain historical observations by extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution is proposed. Historical contingency means explanations at different levels may exist. Gradualism does not mean constant rate of change.
95% of all scientists accept the above as a proven fact.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Nothing which meets response criterion
You are repeating yourself again Texas, not cool my friend, not cool.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:You are repeating yourself again Texas, not cool my friend, not cool.Nothing which meets response criterion
Au contraire, Scot. Repeating truth is the epitome of cool.
So is re-asking (in different form) an as yet unanswered question about a matter which intrigues me. How and/or why do you apparently exhibit hereon disbelief of Big Bang? I thought that you had affirmed your belief in this proven theory at least two years ago.
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Texas,
I believe in the BB theory, you may have misread my post, it is one of the few things we do agree on, however I do not believe Yahweh intentionally created an entire system of entropic disorder only to intervene locally and create order, an intelligent designer would simply have created an ordered universe.
I wonder if the discovery of life on Mars in the distant past will affect creationism ?
Life and the earth is made from star dust, all the elements come from our sun, if this was a predetermined act then why create an earth that is covered mostly in undrinkable water with a climate designed to kill us, humans can live longer without food or water than they can without shelter.
Looking back in hindsight is not evidence of foresight.
I believe in the BB theory, you may have misread my post, it is one of the few things we do agree on, however I do not believe Yahweh intentionally created an entire system of entropic disorder only to intervene locally and create order, an intelligent designer would simply have created an ordered universe.
I wonder if the discovery of life on Mars in the distant past will affect creationism ?
Life and the earth is made from star dust, all the elements come from our sun, if this was a predetermined act then why create an earth that is covered mostly in undrinkable water with a climate designed to kill us, humans can live longer without food or water than they can without shelter.
Looking back in hindsight is not evidence of foresight.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh, if you do not believe in a creator then you must have sound grounds for not doing so and have a creditable alternative.
The only alternative possible is that everything came about by pure chance with no intelligence involved.
So could you please give me an example of how the eye was developed by natural selection, stage by stage using as long and as many processes as you like, why there are not thousands of examples of those with four eyes six eyes, some at the back of the head etc; and just how nature decided where the eyes should be etc;
The odds as calculated by the process as accepted in that field calculate the odds of the eye coming about by chance or natural selection are so great as to be accepted as impossible.
Then we have the butterfly whose life span and all that it includes should prove beyond doubt to any sensible person that in no way could it have come about without an intelligence beyond our understanding.
Do not start by giving a load of unsubstantiated athiests views just a simple explanation stage by stage as requested.
I will not hold my breath.
The only alternative possible is that everything came about by pure chance with no intelligence involved.
So could you please give me an example of how the eye was developed by natural selection, stage by stage using as long and as many processes as you like, why there are not thousands of examples of those with four eyes six eyes, some at the back of the head etc; and just how nature decided where the eyes should be etc;
The odds as calculated by the process as accepted in that field calculate the odds of the eye coming about by chance or natural selection are so great as to be accepted as impossible.
Then we have the butterfly whose life span and all that it includes should prove beyond doubt to any sensible person that in no way could it have come about without an intelligence beyond our understanding.
Do not start by giving a load of unsubstantiated athiests views just a simple explanation stage by stage as requested.
I will not hold my breath.
polyglide- Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
"give me an example of how the eye was developed by natural selection"
If at first you don't succeed ..... bore everyone to death by repeating the same query until they almost lose the will to live.
If at first you don't succeed ..... bore everyone to death by repeating the same query until they almost lose the will to live.
oftenwrong- Sage
- Posts : 12062
Join date : 2011-10-08
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
If you are convinced you are correct then you would have the answer and there would be no need to repeat the quesion.
So answer the quesion or admit defeat.
So answer the quesion or admit defeat.
polyglide- Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh, if you do not believe in a creator then you must have sound grounds for not doing so and have a creditable alternative.The only alternative possible is that everything came about by pure chance with no intelligence involved.
polyglde, you seem a tad confused, the scientific consensus based on the scentific evidence acquired by objective scientific methods have concluded a credible alternative, the universe is undirected and follows the basic principle of physical cause and effect, the universe is deterministic. The scientific position on God is as follows:
" The alleged entity has no place in any scientific equations, plays no role in any scientific explanations, cannot be used to predict any events, does not describe any thing or force that has yet been detected, and there are no models of the universe in which its presence is either required, productive, or useful."
So could you please give me an example of how the eye was developed by natural selection, stage by stage using as long and as many processes as you like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
Molecular phylogenetic evidence for the independent evolutionary origin of an arthropod compound eye
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC122207/
why there are not thousands of examples of those with four eyes six eyes,
I fail to see how the number of eyes supports your case but spiders have 8 eyes, if the eye was designed by God then why does every living organism not have the same visual system ? Why did God design the human eye with a blind spot eh ? eh ? eh ?
Evolution can explain our blind spot, God cannot.
some at the back of the head etc;
A flatfish that lies on the sea bed has eyes on the top of its head.
and just how nature decided where the eyes should be etc.
Nature does not decide nor do the genes decide, nature selects mutations that are the most advantageous for a given environment, this environmental pressure determines whether mutations survive or not.
The odds as calculated by the process as accepted in that field calculate the odds of the eye coming about by chance or natural selection are so great as to be accepted as impossible.
I refuse to even comment on this childlike gibberish, what are the odds God spoke the universe into existence ? Genetic mutation is random, natural selection is not, the fittest mutations survive and are reproduced.
Then we have the butterfly whose life span and all that it includes should prove beyond doubt to any sensible person that in no way could it have come about without an intelligence beyond our understanding.
What it is it with you and butterflies and what has butterflies got to do with intelligence ? Do you intend to plug God into every gap in our knowledge ?
Do not start by giving a load of unsubstantiated athiests views just a simple explanation stage by stage as requested.
The scientific consensus on eye evolution, butterfly evolution and human evolution has absolutely nothing to do with religious belief, and the modern synthesis is supported by a body of incontrovertible evidence so comprehensive as to render it Theory and Fact.
Are you actually winding me up, nobody can be this ignorant of basic biology.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
So answer the quesion or admit defeat..
polyglide, why can I google " eye evolution " for an answer, and you cannot ?
It is baffling me.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
polyglide wrote:Shirina, if you believe the world is a peaceful place you will believe anything other than the truth.
There are nations at each others throats but dare not actually do anything about it because of the possible consequences to themselves.
That is not peace and can explode at any time.
There are also many actual wars in progress throughout the world, they may be small but those killed are just as dead as those in a world war.
Just wait and see the consequences of the action Israel will take against Iran.
Wake up and see the facts rather than fiction.
While you ignore the statistical facts.
Like violent crimes and deaths, including from war, are the best they have ever been.
Then again, you already believe in fantasy, miracles and magic so facts mean little to you.
Regards
DL
Greatest I am- Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Greatest I am wrote:
While you ignore the statistical facts.
You have presented no “statistical facts” for anyone to ignore.
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:
… why can I google " eye evolution " for an answer… ?
It is baffling me.
Complex eyes appear to have1 first evolved within a few million years…
...if2 numerous gradations… if3 further, the eye does vary… if4 any variation or modification in the organ… a perfect and complex eye could be5 formed by natural selection…
He suggested6… Darwin's suggestions7…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
- Speculative, conjectural terminology.
- Speculative, conjectural terminology.
- Speculative, conjectural terminology.
- Speculative, conjectural terminology.
- Speculative, conjectural terminology.
- Speculative, conjectural terminology.
- Speculative, conjectural terminology.
Scot,
I googled “eye evolution”; in the first hit, I got speculative conjecture of eye evolution sans proof or evidence. Curiously, I did get accounts of stuff found in dated dirt, convincing evidence, in my opinion, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, of eye appearance, rather suddenly and sans precursor, which provides compelling evidence of an outside force acting upon life in a designing manner. Shall we who accept evidence from dated dirt and allow that evidence to guide and shape our conclusions call this outside, designing force YHVH Elohim, referred to in a “bronze age” letter authored by John (an apostle of Y’shua bar Yosef, Y’shua Moshiach) as agape, love?
“Can Elohim agapao?”, or, with Hebrew (Elohim) and Greek (agapao) translated into English, “Can God love?” Elohim is agapao, God is love.
I suggest that you read for yourself and seek to understand with a far more open mind than you’ve exhibited up to now. Thank you.
Greek Bible:
“Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent his only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.”
1 John 4:7-10
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Modern scientific texts written following extensive research roc considers as speculative...
A book written following word of mouth recital of information over a couple of thousand years ago, with all the risk of oral mistakes, like Chinese Whispers roc find infallible truth.....
A book written following word of mouth recital of information over a couple of thousand years ago, with all the risk of oral mistakes, like Chinese Whispers roc find infallible truth.....
astradt1- Moderator
- Posts : 966
Join date : 2011-10-08
Age : 69
Location : East Midlands
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:
Texas,
I believe in the BB theory…
Scot,
Apparently you do not.
RockOnBrother wrote:
Re: Can God love?
by RockOnBrother on Wed 29 Aug 2012 - 10:20I have slightly altered your text that I might address your concern. Altered text is underlined below.Tosh wrote:
Texas,
It seems you have a problem with any scientific evidence that contradicts the Genesis myth…I have a problem with any scientific evidence that contradicts Big Bang.Tosh wrote:
It seems you have a problem with any scientific evidence that contradicts the Genesis account…
You certainly appear to deny the “who”, the “what”, the “when”, and the “where” of the Bing Bang Theory, as shown below.
RockOnBrother wrote:
Re: Can God love?
by RockOnBrother on Wed 29 Aug 2012 - 10:20Who-What-When-Where-How-Why exposition and comparison of Genesis 1:1 and Big Bang:
1. Genesis 1:1, brief exposition:
English, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Hebrew, “B’r’shythe bara Elohim et hashamayim ve’et ha’arets”.
- Who: Elohim, power, plural of Eloah, power, by inference, incomprehensible, immeasurable power.
- What, bara, created, by inference, created from nothing, et hashamayim ve’et ha’arets, the heavens (everything other than the earth), and the earth (everything other than the heavens), in total, everything, thus, bara… et hashamayim ve’et ha’arets, created everything from nothing.
- When: B’r’shythe, the beginning, at the beginning, at the point of beginning, at the beginning point of everything, when everything begins.
- Where: B’r’shythe, the beginning, at the beginning, at the point of beginning, at the beginning point of everything, where everything begins.
- Why: Not addressed by Genesis 1:1 (addressed by Genesis 1:2 and following).
- How: Not addressed by Genesis 1:1.
2. Big Bang, brief exposition:
Incomprehensible, immeasurable power, at/from “the singularity”, explodes the universe into existence from nothing.
- Who: Incomprehensible, immeasurable power.
- What, exploded everything (the university) into existence from nothing.
- When: “the singularity”, the beginning, at the beginning, at the point of beginning, at the beginning point of everything, (b) when everything begins.
- Where: “the singularity”, the beginning, at the beginning, at the point of beginning, at the beginning point of everything, where everything begins.
- Why: Not addressed by Big Bang.
- How: Addressed by Big Bang data set.
When one denies the “who”, “what”, “when”, and “where” of something, in this care, “the event”, one denies the essential core of that something, in this care, “the event”, and by so doing, one denies that something, in this case, “the event”, and one loses all legitimate claim to believing in that something, in this case, “the event”, i.e., the Big Bang.
Tosh wrote:
… you may have misread my post…
I have misread nothing.
Tosh wrote:
… it is one of the few things we do agree on…
If you are recanting your denial, excellent. I appreciate your honesty in affirming your belief that “B’r’shythe bara Elohim et hashamayim ve’et ha’arets.”
Tosh wrote:
… however I do not believe Yahweh…
I am unaware of “Yahweh.” I am unawre of any mention of “Yahweh” in “B’r’shythe bara Elohim et hashamayim ve’et ha’arets.”
Tosh wrote:
… intentionally created an entire system of entropic disorder only to intervene locally and create order…
I’ve never said “locally”; I’ve never said “temporally. The entirety of existence, the universe, is a closed system in which order prevails.
The 2nd Law of a Thermodynamics, a “law” because its ability to predict that which it predicts is absolute (that’s my physics background combined with my natural disdain for obfuscatory “physics-speak”), is an integral part of that order in its rock-solid reliability, its replicability (perhaps not a word, but it ought to be), and thus adheres to the order of this closed system we call existence.
Our universe turns out to be “chaortic” (a term coined by someone else), often seemingly chaotic when examined at a time and space limited level while orderly when examined over its entire span of space time. This overarching order, without which your existence is impossible, is compelling evidence of design, and compelling evidence of design is compelling evidence of designer.
If you choose to remain in ignorance of this overwhelming evidence, you are free to do so. If you wish to independently examine this evidence, I suggest that DVR these four series, “The Universe”, “How the Universe Works”, “Wonders of the Universe”, and “Wonders of the Solar System”, and view the overarching “chaortic” order for yourself.
Tosh wrote:
… an intelligent designer would simply have created an ordered universe.
An intelligent designer did.
Tosh wrote:
… if this was a predetermined act then why create an earth that is covered mostly in undrinkable water…
Water was not always here. How did it get here? Why is the amount that got here not too much, not too little, but “just right?”
Tosh wrote:
… with a climate designed to kill us…
How did Earth come into a stable orbit around its star, not too close (too hot), not too far (too cold), but “just right?”
Last edited by RockOnBrother on Fri Aug 31, 2012 10:45 pm; edited 1 time in total
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
When one denies the “who”, “what”, “when”, and “where” of something, in this care, “the event”, one denies the essential core of that something, in this care, “the event”, and by so doing, one denies that something, in this case, “the event”, and one loses all legitimate claim to believing in that something, in this case, “the event”, i.e., the Big Bang.
Texas,
Prove I denied it by posting my denial or accept you misread me and apologize for your error.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:Texas,When one denies the “who”, “what”, “when”, and “where” of something, in this care, “the event”, one denies the essential core of that something, in this care, “the event”, and by so doing, one denies that something, in this case, “the event”, and one loses all legitimate claim to believing in that something, in this case, “the event”, i.e., the Big Bang.
Prove I denied it by posting my denial or accept you misread me and apologize for your error.
Compelling evidence, in my opinion, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, will have to do.
Tosh wrote:
Texas,
It seems you have a problem with any scientific evidence that contradicts the Genesis myth…
Perhaps you did not author the quoted text. If so, I apologize for attributing to you that which you did not author.
To make the leap for you, by calling B’r’shythe bara Elohim et hashamayim ve’et ha’arets “myth”, you call the “who”, “what”, “when”, and “where” of B’r’shythe bara Elohim et hashamayim ve’et ha’arets and Big Bang “myth”, thus providing compelling evidence of your disbelief therein.
Guest- Guest
Page 13 of 25 • 1 ... 8 ... 12, 13, 14 ... 19 ... 25
Similar topics
» Can God love? (Part 2)
» Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?
» Evidence for the existence of God (Part 1)
» Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)
» What now for Labour? (Part 1)
» Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?
» Evidence for the existence of God (Part 1)
» Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)
» What now for Labour? (Part 1)
Page 13 of 25
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum