|
2 registered members (Ayumi, AndrewAMD),
1,112
guests, and 1
spider. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#76257
07/06/06 23:51
07/06/06 23:51
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Fair enough. But I was thinking in terms of deciding what the ultimate intelligent power is. According to theists, we're ignorant little runts, barely able to hold it together (in a sense). According to atheists, we're never wrong because there is no such thing as wrong. I was thinking more in terms of that.
I'm not quite following your reasoning here. I'd say we rather think that there's no right, instead of wrong. Every theory we could think off could be wrong in any or all aspects of such a theory, so wrong definately exists.
Maybe according to you there's a slight difference between a theory proven to be right and a theory not yet falsified, but I don't quite see why 'wrong' wouldn't exist.
Quote:
You can't use time existing now as proof of the supposition that it has a reason for existing. So given those two possibilities, why should time even exist in the first place? And if time doesn't exist at one point, then it doesn't exist for an eternity in which case time will never exist.
If time doesn't exist at one point, that would mean that absolutely nothing happens in the infinite nothingness for an infinite amount of none-existing time. There's one problem though, can such a thing even exist? Infinite none-existing time? Quite hard to comprehend. When thinking abstract it could simply indicate the moment before 'time' started, but a start of something implies time too don't you think? The moment before the start could, no even more correct 'would' be another time (a moment, an indication of a time related event(s)). (think of someone with a stopwatch, time within time, although this is more artificial, this is how you could comprehend it.)
General movement, relative or 'absolute' distances between objects and velocity make that there's time. There can only be no time, when nothing happened in the past and nothing will happen in the future, everything would have to be totally empty. (no objects, no relative distances, thus no 'time' between objects, no velocity either.)
Quote:
Well, I personally have the assumption that God did inspire the bible, and He didn't lie about himself. By His definition, He wouldn't need a creator.
Fair enough, eventhough pure phylosophical off course. This assumption of divine inspiration from the writers of the bible can't be known for certain. Infact, by Gods definition it's not possible to ever know something like that. Now, that's what I call paradox. Off course I'm a bit biased, but those humans have written something about that which they can't possibly know off, that is describing the nature of God, and at the very same time that describtion defines that it can't be known, since God can be/do/act whatever he wants or likes. The very problem in this odd circle of socalled knowledge lies in the fact that eventhough God is nowhere near what or how humans are according to the very same definitions, he still get's described by human invented definitions. You don't have to be smart to see what's wrong here. This automatically makes the bible untrue.
In the bible it should say "we don't know what or who God is" instead, infact it shouldn't even have the word 'God' in it, devine inspiration or not, but God would definately have lied if he would explain it in human invented definitions to his followers that wrote the bible. Needless to say that this also makes the bible untrue on beforehand. Sure, from the human perspective we need human invented definitions to describe everything around us and comprehend everything, but according to the bible God can not be understood ('God works in mysterious ways'  ), well then any given definition would be wrong. Maybe it's me, but I think it's not possible for us to know anything about him, human definitions only make us 'think we know', but we don't know. Remember, I haven't said anything about wether or not this disproves God's existence/none-existence.
Quote:
Indeed, but this raises an interesting paradox. If the universe is infinite, that means at any given point in time (we'll use an absolute amount for the point for simplicity's sake, say one second) an infinite amount of energy is being used. What's X if infinity - infinity = x.
I don't think there is actually a paradox here, since it doesn't make any sense to do calculations whilst thinking in absolutes when your talking about infinity (that's sort of beyond 'absolutes'). I don't say you can't make calculations with it, but it starts with little odd things like. Take infinity and do infinite-1, that would still be infinity, right? Right. Now let's do that calculation an infinite amount of times, what would happen to infinity? In my opinion exactly nothing, since the first infinity -1, still is infinity.
Cheers
Last edited by PHeMoX; 07/06/06 23:55.
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: PHeMoX]
#76258
07/07/06 00:44
07/07/06 00:44
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
I'm not quite following your reasoning here. I'd say we rather think that there's no right, instead of wrong. Every theory we could think off could be wrong in any or all aspects of such a theory, so wrong definately exists.
I was talking in terms of truth, ideas, and morals. Not scientific discovery. Gravity exists whether or not we know it. No one argues that. But we do argue over the nature of truth and morality. I say we don't know what's right because we're not the source of right and wrong. Atheists say we are the source of right and wrong, and because of that there is no right and wrong.
Not to kickstart the relativism debate. I'm just pointing out the difference in beliefs.
Quote:
If time doesn't exist at one point, that would mean that absolutely nothing happens in the infinite nothingness for an infinite amount of none-existing time.
That's the way I see it.
Quote:
There's one problem though, can such a thing even exist?
Well...that's the difficult part. But it raises some interesting questions. If God didn't create us, then it was an infinite regress of natural events that lead to the creation of the universe. If God created everything, then at some point there was nothing, and it all sprouted out of his creativity from such a state as timeless time, and matterless space, and spaceless....ness.
Quote:
Infinite none-existing time?
This isn't a problem for theists who know that God can create time. I just bring it up, because excluding God on scientific grounds, there CANNOT be a point in time where time doesn't exist or it won't exist forever. So either an infinite creator made time and time has a beginning, or time exists for no reason but it existed forever.
Quote:
When thinking abstract it could simply indicate the moment before 'time' started, but a start of something implies time too don't you think?
Any time before time would be infinite and there can be no time before the time before time. 
Quote:
The moment before the start could, no even more correct 'would' be another time (a moment, an indication of a time related event(s)). (think of someone with a stopwatch, time within time, although this is more artificial, this is how you could comprehend it.)
Well....I don't know how you could nest time. I've never heard of any theories on this.
Quote:
General movement, relative or 'absolute' distances between objects and velocity make that there's time. There can only be no time, when nothing happened in the past and nothing will happen in the future, everything would have to be totally empty. (no objects, no relative distances, thus no 'time' between objects, no velocity either.)
Isn't it possible then that time for sure had a beginning? If all movement and distance as we know it was created at the beginning of the universe, then time would have started right at the beginning of the universe too.
Quote:
This assumption of divine inspiration from the writers of the bible can't be known for certain.
It depends on what you see as evidence. For instance, Psalm 22 starts out with "My God, my God, why have you deserted me?" That's according to my bible though, which has slightly modified language, but this is what Jesus said on the cross before dying. This isn't very conclusive, Jesus could just have been crying out one final reference to the Torah.
However, later on in the same Psalm, we see these words: Verse 16, "A group of sinful people has closed in on me. They are all around me like a pack of dogs. They have pierced my hands and my feet. I can see all of my bones right through my skin. People stare at me. They laugh when I suffer. They divide up my clothes among them. They cast lots for what I am wearing."
That would seem to be a strangely coincidental prophecy of Jesus as on the cross. I don't think its just a coincidence.
The psalms are accepted to have been written between 1000 B.C. and 400 B.C. So many centuries before Jesus even arrived on the scene, they were describing details of His life. I say between 1000 B.C. and 400 B.C. because they were constantly being added to so some psalms are dated between those two times.
Quote:
Infact, by Gods definition it's not possible to ever know something like that. Now, that's what I call paradox.
Well, if God used man to accurately describe Him, then He also was accurate in saying His word (the bible) is divinely inspired, which is what the bible says. But that requires the assumption that its inspired. I would just like to say that there are MANY many prophecies concerning Jesus in the old testament, some of them are generic enough to predict a lot of things, but others are rather specific and have been shown to have come true anyway.
I think God did that on purpose so that we could know the bible was inspired.
Quote:
Off course I'm a bit biased, but those humans have written something about that which they can't possibly know off, that is describing the nature of God
I disagree. They describe some aspects of His nature (His existence being beyond the nature of the universe, existing before time and that He will exist after time) but largely the bible seems to be His relation to humanity, which is a very graspable concept.
I agree though, spiritual matters are in many ways beyond comprehension, which is why Jesus spoke metaphorically in a lot of cases.
Quote:
he still get's described by human invented definitions.
Only so that we can grasp something about Him. I mean, you wouldn't describe evolution to a chinese person using english, would you? You'd want to speak their language.
Quote:
'God works in mysterious ways'
In other words his reasoning is Holy, and thus mysterious to the human animal which is subject to its sinful nature. We may wonder why God does things the way He does, but that doesn't mean He doesn't do things.
Quote:
human definitions only make us 'think we know', but we don't know.
I disagree. This sort of thing is common in conveying scientific ideas to the layman. If you want someone to understand a scientific idea, you don't use terms and things that they won't understand, you convey the idea in language they'll understand.
God would be cruel if He didn't 'speak' in a way that all people across all time could understand.
Quote:
I don't think there is actually a paradox here, since it doesn't make any sense to do calculations whilst thinking in absolutes when your talking about infinity (that's sort of beyond 'absolutes'). I don't say you can't make calculations with it, but it starts with little odd things like. Take infinity and do infinite-1, that would still be infinity, right? Right. Now let's do that calculation an infinite amount of times, what would happen to infinity? In my opinion exactly nothing, since the first infinity -1, still is infinity.
Which is why I posite that at least in cases like these, infinity cannot exist in nature. But I don't know. While I wouldn't mind if the universe was infinitely large, I would have a hard time accepting that conclusion, since we would be an such a small, insignificant corner, it would be impossible to tell what the universe is like trillions of trillions of miles/kilometers away.
This is a fun discussion.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#76259
07/07/06 21:03
07/07/06 21:03
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Well...that's the difficult part. But it raises some interesting questions. If God didn't create us, then it was an infinite regress of natural events that lead to the creation of the universe. If God created everything, then at some point there was nothing, and it all sprouted out of his creativity from such a state as timeless time, and matterless space, and spaceless....ness.
"If God created everything ..." wowow, hold on, there was NOTHING remember ... Nothingness .. no god , no nothing, just empty spaceless-ness, so how did God somehow show up there? He is the nothingness? Aaw, so he is basically nothing? Well, why doesn't our theory satisfy you then? All came from nothing without cause. Okey, I'm just making some fun here off course, but explain to me why would it be a 'regress of natural events', why not simply '*poof* and the universe came into existence without cause, which started the (chain)reaction of events that made life possible and that caused what we see around us now'?
Quote:
I say we don't know what's right because we're not the source of right and wrong. Atheists say we are the source of right and wrong, and because of that there is no right and wrong.
Not to kickstart the relativism debate.
I don't want to get into the relativism debate either, but how can you even deny that it works this way? You can't proof absolute truths, so why keep dreaming about them still?  However you can disproof something by falsifying.
Quote:
Only so that we can grasp something about Him. I mean, you wouldn't describe evolution to a chinese person using english, would you? You'd want to speak their language.
You've slightly missed my point with this. We couldn't possibly comprehend him by reading some definitions that don't even come close to what he is, because it's not in his language, THIS makes him lie about himself automatically through the bible. Like you said, if you want to understand something said by a chinese, you would wish to know what he says in chinese, now why doesn't God do that??
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: PHeMoX]
#76260
07/08/06 04:36
07/08/06 04:36
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
"If God created everything ..." wowow, hold on, there was NOTHING remember ... Nothingness .. no god , no nothing, just empty spaceless-ness, so how did God somehow show up there?
Well, anything anyone says on this is conjecture. But I meant a physical nothingness. God isn't a physical being, even if He can manifest Himself in the physical universe. So technically I don't think a physical nothingness means no God.
Quote:
Well, why doesn't our theory satisfy you then?
Because yours says that there must be a natural explanation. This is going to be repetative, but there are two natural choices. An infinite regress of natural events (what created the thing that created the other thing....?) which I think okham's razor might apply to because there would then need to be a cause for the infinite causes, and then an infinite amount of causes for the infinite causes, so on and so forth. Or there's option B, in which case you believe absolutely nothing (no energy, no space, no time, and of course no matter) somehow transitioned into the physical universe. The latter of the two options can immediately be dismissed, because if time doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist for eternity, unless something causes it to exist.
Quote:
but explain to me why would it be a 'regress of natural events'
If you agree that the second option as stated above is impossible, then that means you CANNOT accept the universe coming from absolutely nothing.
So...In that case no matter what explanation, or theory on a pre-universe state, you give me, I can always ask, "Where did that come from?" You'd have to have a cause. But then what caused that cause? It would have to be an infinite regress of causes, otherwise you would have to say that it all came out of nowhere. And that takes us back to the problem of the second option.
Quote:
why not simply '*poof* and the universe came into existence without cause, which started the (chain)reaction of events that made life possible and that caused what we see around us now'?
Because before the 'poof' there wouldn't be time. In the period where time doesn't exist, it will continue not to exist for eternity.
Quote:
I don't want to get into the relativism debate either, but how can you even deny that it works this way? You can't proof absolute truths, so why keep dreaming about them still? However you can disproof something by falsifying.
Really, it all relates to which idea is more egocentric (theism or atheism). The only problem is, if one system of belief (religion) is more egocentric, does that make it false?
Quote:
You've slightly missed my point with this. We couldn't possibly comprehend him by reading some definitions that don't even come close to what he is, because it's not in his language, THIS makes him lie about himself automatically through the bible.
Ah, but where in the bible does it claim to reveal everything about God? He really tells us very little about Himself. So He reveals only what we can understand. We can understand that He is creative, that he is absolutely just and holy, and that He is loving. I don't see why that would be a lie.
Maybe we're not on the same page. So let me ask, what in the bible do you think is a false portrayal of God? You don't need an exact verse, but just something you might remember off hand. I can always try and look it up, or I might just know what you mean without research.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#76261
07/08/06 06:27
07/08/06 06:27
|
Anonymous
OP
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
OP
Unregistered
|
Time can't not exist for an 'eternity', yet at the same time saying 'there was no time' or 'before time' is equally nonsense. 'Outside of time' is more accurate.
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#76264
07/08/06 22:07
07/08/06 22:07
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Well, anything anyone says on this is conjecture. But I meant a physical nothingness. God isn't a physical being, even if He can manifest Himself in the physical universe. So technically I don't think a physical nothingness means no God.
Who says God isn't physical? I heard people say they thought God is in all and everything (it's a possibility), so he might aswell be more or less physical, or maybe bounded to the physical. Why shouldn't he be? How do we know this? Or better, what reasons are there to believe this to be true? I know you've got faith in this and base your thought upon this, but where's the real motivation? Infact, I couldn't think of any motivation to justify these thoughts enough to be able to believe them. We simple can not know this, just like the nature of any God and any of it's habits, influence or shape, unless we get some clear evidence about any of this.
Like you said yourself in another thread;
Quote:
There are some things we can never know for sure, because we weren't there to witness them. Science doesn't determine what God is capable of, its just knowledge determined by testing the known universe.
Since science didn't find anything pointing towards a God, the general consensus it that it thus doesn't exist. Some consider God to be impossible to prove because he supposedly is outside of the physical, not that we could even know this off course when true. Nice ... Anyways, my point is, and I think you've stated that too, we can't really know in the end, we haven't witnissed him. And my conclusion would be, then why believe?
Quote:
So...In that case no matter what explanation, or theory on a pre-universe state, you give me, I can always ask, "Where did that come from?" You'd have to have a cause. But then what caused that cause? It would have to be an infinite regress of causes, otherwise you would have to say that it all came out of nowhere. And that takes us back to the problem of the second option.
Yes, you are right, these kind of questions partly make no sense, but when a religion does seem to give certain answers to something we can never know (pre-universe state is quite unlikely to be ever found out I think, pure theories only(?)). I tend to think about these kind of questions to explain that we really can't know.
Quote:
Ah, but where in the bible does it claim to reveal everything about God? He really tells us very little about Himself. So He reveals only what we can understand. We can understand that He is creative, that he is absolutely just and holy, and that He is loving. I don't see why that would be a lie.
The bible does state that God is so great, that we could never understand him, still it does give certain definitions, just try reading between the lines more, actually a lot is being told about God himself.
Partly it's not about the part he does mention about himself, but the part he doesn't or didn't explain.
The most questions we have are about what we don't know, not about what we do know.
People state God doesn't lie, God supposedly gave information about who or what he is like and this was written down in the bible, right? God supposedly is greater than any set of human definitions could possibly describe him by, that's also straight out of the bible, which makes his own explanation about himself incomplete at least, and in error in my opinion. It's not the bible that claims that God totally reveals who he is, it's the theists who claim that, and they also say, as is mentioned in the bible, that God would never lie. Well then, if he gives incomplete information about himself, by the lack of human definitions that could do justice to God, then he lied, being not able to properly explain who he is. Like said, the bible should have stated that we could never comprehend what's he like or what he is, "greater than any man could possibly conceive", and maybe this would render this 'argument' irrelevant... It may sound as a difference of interpretation of the bible, but remember I'm reading the same words in the book you are ... I might have found out that what God said about himself, and what the writers thought is not a clear match or anything, but when I have a bit more time on my hands, maybe I could come with some examples.
Quote:
Really, it all relates to which idea is more egocentric (theism or atheism). The only problem is, if one system of belief (religion) is more egocentric, does that make it false?
My personal world view theory is actually quite egocentric too. It's based on theories about actions/reactions, events, (hopefully ) by reason and evidence. I won't get into details to much, because then I would still be typing for some 8 hours I think, but it's egocentric too. It is however not ignorent by stating that we know things we can't know (it's relativistic).
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: PHeMoX]
#76265
07/09/06 06:54
07/09/06 06:54
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Who says God isn't physical?
Well let's assume He is for the moment. That causes a glaring paradox, because God already exists as a physical being, but He created the universe. Well how can He create the universe if it must already exist for Him to be physical?
Quote:
I heard people say they thought God is in all and everything (it's a possibility),
He is in a sense, (don't take this the wrong way) but common sense dictates that he isn't physically in all things. We don't find God in the 'cracks' of the universe.
" Look at the birds in the sky. They do not toil or reap or gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them."
Matthew 6:26
I think this can help shed some light on it. Certainly we know that God doesn't physically hand food to the birds. But the point is that God creates and sustains the universe. If God wanted it, the universe would disappear without a trace. He can change the nature of the universe, too. Imagine telling Adam (before sin) that pain and suffering are natural and he might tell you that it simply isn't physically possible.
The bible doesn't say that God maintains things in a physical way, but we know that "With God, all things are possible." Matthew 19:26.
He clothes the flowers, and feeds the birds. Without God, the physical act of nature replenishing itself, of birds finding food, wouldn't even be possible, its all done by His will. But obviously not in a physical way. It would be contradictory to say God is physical, but without Him sustaining the universe, there is no universe.
Quote:
or maybe bounded to the physical
The creation must always be lesser than the creator. If God is less than the universe, we would scientifically know that He didn't create it.
Quote:
How do we know this? Or better, what reasons are there to believe this to be true?
I'm going to put the bible down now and go into logic mode. I'm going to assume you agree with my premise that the universe must have a beginning, and that it must have been created out of nothing by an eternally powerful, supernatural cause. If you don't then we can return to those points.
However, starting from that premise we can learn several things about this Creator without looking at the bible or using faith.
Number one, this uncaused supernatural cause is not physical. For the reasons stated earlier. The physical cannot create itself, because it would already exist before creating itself. This rings true in the bible (okay I guess I'm not putting it down) which says, "In Christ were created all things in heaven and on earth everything visible and everything invisible.... Before anything was created, he existed, and he holds all things in unity." Colossians 1:16-17
Here, my faith that the bible is true is confirmed through logic and reason.
Number two, this creator exists 'before time', 'outside of time', 'and beyond time'.
For instance, naturally speaking any creation of the universe must have a beginning. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes, so there must be an uncaused cause. However, this uncaused cause must exist outside of time. That said, any natural cause that exists outside of time will never create the universe, because the universe will not exist for an eternity. Therefore, this Creator is above and beyond time in the sense that time never affects the Creator, unless the Creator manifests itself in a physical way (burning bush, etc).
The bible is consistent with this logic. 2 Peter 3:8 says, "One day is a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is as one day."
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End." Revelation 1:8
Well, I can't remember all of the verses that talk about that, but the 2 Peter verse should suffice for now.
So just using logic, and ignoring the bible we can know a few things about God. He isn't physical, and He isn't affected by time. The bible backs this up.
Quote:
We simple can not know this, just like the nature of any God and any of it's habits, influence or shape, unless we get some clear evidence about any of this.
Quote:
Since science didn't find anything pointing towards a God,
Well then, I hope I cleared that up for you.
Quote:
Some consider God to be impossible to prove because he supposedly is outside of the physical
I think its quite possible, and rather easy to prove. When you combine what we know about the universe, and compare it to what's written in the bible, it all pans out quite nicely.
Quote:
not that we could even know this off course when true.
I think you're looking at this the wrong way. This isn't about waiting for God to perform some unquestionable miracle every generation so that people never stop believing in Him. This is a question over the validity of what the bible says about Him, and what we know about the natural universe. Its just a matter of getting all the clutter out of the way. You said yourself that you don't have an example, so its hard to make my point, but I don't think there's anything written in the bible that can be called contradictory.
"The heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain him." 2 Chronicles 2:6
Does this reveal God? No, but it tells us something about His nature. It is possible for us, lesser beings, to understand some things about things that can't be completely understood.
We may not know exactly what God is? But does that stop us from knowing that He wants salvation for us? Does that stop us from understanding His will in sacrificing His son just so that we could have eternal life?
What we can't understand doesn't prevent us from understanding what we can, and what we can understand is more important than what we can't.
To put it in an analogy, consider the atom. We don't know exactly what its like, we don't know what it looks like (or we didn't anyway). But we come up with diagrams, and we watch the way it affects the physical universe so we can grasp some of it. We don't dismiss the notion of an atom just because we can't completely comprehend it. We study what we can, and we notice that the natural universe tells us it must exist. Knowing what we do about the atom, we can make all sorts of useful theories, predictions, etc, all without every truly comprehending the atom. What we do know about the atom, is always more important than what we don't know.
Quote:
we haven't witnissed him. And my conclusion would be, then why believe
We have witnessed Him. Through His creation. Through His physical manifestation as Christ. I think we should believe because its reasonable, rational, and logical to believe. His word affirms itself, and nature screams 'design.'
More importantly, we should believe because its the only way to salvation. "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." John 8:12 In a universe that appears to have been created by a Creator, its best to heed that Creator's word. If God is powerful enough to create the universe, then one of the smallest challenges for Him is telling the truth about how to be saved, and what it means to be saved.
You can spend the rest of your life wondering how you could ever possibly comprehend God, when you don't need to. All you have to do is put your faith in Christ, and accept His sacrifice for you.
Quote:
Partly it's not about the part he does mention about himself, but the part he doesn't or didn't explain.
How can the bible contradict itself on what it doesn't say?
Quote:
People state God doesn't lie, God supposedly gave information about who or what he is like and this was written down in the bible, right?
Yup.
Quote:
God supposedly is greater than any set of human definitions could possibly describe him by, that's also straight out of the bible, which makes his own explanation about himself incomplete at least, and in error in my opinion.
Ok, I might not see where you're coming from. But let me ask you this. There are a lot of people 'attacking' the bible right now. Why is it that the best they can do is claim that Jesus said the end times were soon (which He explicitly did not), and minor contradictions like that? Why can't anyone point out any falsehood about God Himself. One area in which the bible claims something about God that is completely impossible? Don't you think this would have happened by now?
Any 'description' of God is incomplete, but it reflects the incomplete nature of our intelligence, not a lack of God's existence.
Quote:
It may sound as a difference of interpretation of the bible, but remember I'm reading the same words in the book you are
I know, and I'm listening to what you have to say. I think we're not entirely on the same page, but this is an interesting discussion, and we'll probably come to a better understanding.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 07/09/06 07:05.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#76266
07/09/06 07:59
07/09/06 07:59
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Either the universe has existed forever, in which case we wouldn't be alive right now because the universe would be in a complete state of entropy.
Why do you insist on repeating this entropy nonsense. Do you even know what the third law of thermodynamics actually says?
"As a system approaches absolute zero of temperature all processes cease and the entropy of the system approaches a minimum value."
Therefore the exact opposite is true even if the universe lost all heat.. zero entropy. Dont bandy about science you obviously dont understand.
|
|
|
|
