Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 40 to 52 of 81
  1. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,504
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Schoen View Post
    If I might speak for boots, he believes, along with I suspect most of the religious, in an absolute truth. This is a truth that cannot be modified. I personally have no problems with absolute truth. In fact, I'd like to believe that our understanding of thermodynamic laws are absolute truth. If this is the case, then I'm convinced this effectively proves the existence of God.
    I think most of us have absolutes. I am convinced, for example, that apples will continue to fall to the ground for the rest of my life. However, that is a tangible. God is intangible. You will never prove Him. But why should you need to?

    Look at it this way... let's say that tomorrow a new theory is released that shows that you are all wrong... that matter could pop in from nowhere because of the existence of negative energy or whatever. So what? Why does that mean that the physics of the universe are NOT either the intent or the direct action of God?
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  2. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    20,677
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    I think most of us have absolutes. I am convinced, for example, that apples will continue to fall to the ground for the rest of my life. However, that is a tangible. God is intangible. You will never prove Him. But why should you need to?

    Look at it this way... let's say that tomorrow a new theory is released that shows that you are all wrong... that matter could pop in from nowhere because of the existence of negative energy or whatever. So what? Why does that mean that the physics of the universe are NOT either the intent or the direct action of God?
    When Andy speaks of absolutes, he is speaking about truths. Truths are intangible, are they not? You know...merely words. But words with a meaning. In other words...eliminate the gray areas. Eg: One should never lie. In God's economy, that is an absolute.

    Pure truth is ALWAYS absolute. And accurate science has discovered certain absolutes...like apples will fall to the ground when unimpeded by outside resistance and will do so for your entire life.

    Surely you can grasp this.
    No reserve. No retreat. No regrets.

    For those who have fought for it, freedom has a sweetness the protected will never know.

    http://www.airwarvietnam.com/16thSOSGunners2.jpg

    Proud member of KA Club

  3. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    2,985
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    I think most of us have absolutes. I am convinced, for example, that apples will continue to fall to the ground for the rest of my life.
    You are confusing observation with absolute law. You've already pointed out that Newtonian law is not absolutely correct. Einstein modified it.

    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    God is intangible. You will never prove Him. But why should you need to?

    Look at it this way... let's say that tomorrow a new theory is released that shows that you are all wrong... that matter could pop in from nowhere because of the existence of negative energy or whatever. So what? Why does that mean that the physics of the universe are NOT either the intent or the direct action of God?
    Whether or not you understand the concept, you are effectively stating absolute truth does not exist.

    Absolute truth is a major problem for the atheist. Science is based on causality. If you have something that is absolutely true, can you can have a cause for it?

  4. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,504
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Schoen View Post
    You are confusing observation with absolute law.
    No, observations are how laws come about. For example, as you know Newton's Laws explain nothing... they simply show cause and effect.

    You've already pointed out that Newtonian law is not absolutely correct. Einstein modified it.
    Even so... the laws work quite well on Earth. And always will... presumably. Until the sun goes nova or an asteroid hits us, at least.

    Whether or not you understand the concept, you are effectively stating absolute truth does not exist.

    Absolute truth is a major problem for the atheist. Science is based on causality. If you have something that is absolutely true, can you can have a cause for it?
    Why not? I mean... what feature does absolute truth have that requires *either* a cause or no cause? I don't get it.
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  5. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,504
    Quote Originally Posted by bootlen View Post
    When Andy speaks of absolutes, he is speaking about truths. Truths are intangible, are they not?
    Er... no. I have just told you a lie. How do you tell without tangible evidence? What is this whole thing about putting the word "absolute" in front of the word truth that makes you think that absolute truth cannot be scientific? Or that absolute truth MUST have no beginning? Again, I don't get the philosophy.

    Surely you can grasp this.
    Nope. Sorry. I am hopeless... I have told you that...
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  6. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Kenilworth NJ
    Posts
    942
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    I think most of us have absolutes. I am convinced, for example, that apples will continue to fall to the ground for the rest of my life. However, that is a tangible. God is intangible. You will never prove Him. But why should you need to?
    Because you asked me too....

    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    Why does that mean that the physics of the universe are NOT either the intent or the direct action of God?
    Physical laws are the direct action of God. We gat the fun of discovering all the cool things he designed into the physical properties of the universe (like electricity, the effects that cause refrigeration, ect.)
    Hmmmm....smells like numbatwo to me.

  7. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Kenilworth NJ
    Posts
    942
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    One last question. God breathed on man, but you were not one of them. So, how can you be so sure that man, as is his nature, did not screw things up (even unitentionally - not everything has to be about bad intent) between then and the time that the words were put on paper? Accuracy of translation can only account for what happened *after* it was written.
    This is a FANTASTIC question. You really are a thinker Scrog. Interestingly, it seems as though the Bibble writers personality came through in the words that they wrote. their thoughts were 'herded' by the spirit if you will. so while many actually quoted god:
    (Isaiah 7:7-8) “‘This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said: “It will not stand, neither will it take place. 8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Re′zin; and within just sixty-five years E′phra·im will be shattered to pieces so as not to be a people.

    Other times they reported dreams god gave them.
    (Daniel 7:1)In the first year of Bel·shaz′zar the king of Babylon, Daniel himself beheld a dream and visions of his head upon his bed. At that time he wrote down the dream itself. The complete account of the matters he told.

    It is interesting that the meaning of the dreams are actually tied into the actual language used by the bible writer in describing them. They were just trying to get it all out, but the spirit made sure WE had what god needed to get conveyed, even though it was at times trying for the people used.

    (Daniel 7:28) 28 “Up to this point is the end of the matter. As for me, Daniel, my own thoughts kept frightening me a great deal, so that my very complexion changed in me; but the matter itself I kept in my own heart.”
    (Daniel 8:27) 27 And as for me, Daniel, I felt exhausted and was made sick for [some] days. Then I got up and did the work of the king; but I kept showing myself numbed on account of the thing seen, and there was nobody understanding [it].

    Other times they were given a message, and they were allowed lattitude in expressing it, using their own words and illustrations.

    The spirit does not force the person, the person is induced, and the outcome is known to god, without a violation of man's free will, just the same way i can tell how boot would respond if I told him tb wears a too too to work and I have proof. He knows us well, and based on the intimate knowledge of the humans used, he can balance their imperfections, their right to choose for themselves their own course, and the objectives god has in inspiring them.

    maybe this belongs in the other thread....
    Hmmmm....smells like numbatwo to me.

  8. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    55
    Wow, no wonder the politics in the states are so complicated. Too many views that start off simple enough but quickly evolve into bickering, hate , then war. If there is a god or ever was a god, he ran away a long time ago after being radically disappointed in his creation of mankind. How many wars has science started? How many wars has religion started? Just about every war started on this planet has been due to who's god is the right god? Can there be more than one god? Will he show his face? I doubt it. I wouldn't if I where him. So what if we can't tell you how the big bang was started, we've really only had a hundred years or so of real revelations with scientific discovery. So many years where wasted by religion hiding facts and killing septics because they didn't confine there thinking to the religious theory's. Hell why should they, god is all you need to understand, right? Why figure out that gravity exists so that we can find ways to exploit it so that now we can travel through the solar system or even get on a plane and fly to our relatives for the holidays? Why would we need science? At least science can factually prove why things happen, and how they happen. Can religion? Can you tell me where God lives, what he looks like? Don't speculate, that doesn't wash in the scientific community. They need proof for there theory's. They always start as theory's , but they eventually lead to discoveries with factual proof before they can be accepted. People just accept that god exists, and some even try to ram it down our throats. I didn't come here to ruffle feathers, I came here to state my view, just as the author asked people to do. My view is clear, evolution happened and we can prove it. God may have happened too, but we can't prove it, until you can, don't teach my kids about it.

  9. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Eastern Washington
    Posts
    729
    Quote Originally Posted by hvacker View Post
    This is why an interpretation of "Agnostic" is ignorance (about things metaphysical) is the rational outcome of tought.
    I don't know if I was just called ignorant, Agnostic, or both.
    Maybe I should have added that no matter what is "proven" by either side of the arguument the other side will refute it and say it is wrong. It is a no win argument, since neither side will likely admit defeat.


    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    Let me try once again. Evolution has not ONE thing to do with how life began. Zero. Ziltch. Nada.

    Besides, that was not the question posed: which is why do we not teach creation as an alternative evolution in science class? Answer: because it is NOT science. Second, because the result of evolution was NOT the beginning of life so the two are not comparable.

    Feel free to teach it as philosophy. The alternative to creation in that sense would be abiogenesis. NOT evolution.
    Let me look at the OP.......
    Quote Originally Posted by bigjohn79 View Post
    I got in a argument with the lady again, this time she pointed out some republican candidate that wants to continue the battle for getting rid of the theory of evolution in schools.

    I agree, If we are going to force our kids in to a public school and say that we cant teach about creation than I don't think it is fair to teach about evolution either.
    Looks like evolution was included in the original question to me.

    I don't recall saying that evolution was the alternative to creation, so I have no idea where the lecture on abiogenesis came from.
    I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter.

    I will defend, to your death, my right to my opinion.

  10. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    20,677
    TB wears a tutu to work?


    Who'd'a thunk...?
    No reserve. No retreat. No regrets.

    For those who have fought for it, freedom has a sweetness the protected will never know.

    http://www.airwarvietnam.com/16thSOSGunners2.jpg

    Proud member of KA Club

  11. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,504
    Quote Originally Posted by hvactech13 View Post
    Looks like evolution was included in the original question to me.

    I don't recall saying that evolution was the alternative to creation, so I have no idea where the lecture on abiogenesis came from.
    Right. Sorry for not being more clear. What I am saying is that you are barking up the wrong tree with evolution. If you want to say that God created, than the scientific alternative to creation is abiogensis.

    It is only the fundamentalist view of creation that opposes evolution. But, it also opposes ALL other science. How old the Earth is was more a case made by geologists than evolutionists.

    See what I am saying? Even if evolution were erased from the minds of all mankind, creationists would still have the rest of science to contend with that all pretty much says the same thing. Geology, medical science, even oceanography all show an old Earth making Genesis impossible. Even the global warmers show this, by drilling through a couple of hundred thousand years worth of ice core layers in Greenland. We know what ice core layers are and how they are formed. So...

    None of them were particularly concerned with demonstrating evolution, denying genesis or showing an old Earth. They just report what they found.

    So, to make a case one would have to say that ALL of science is wrong.

    I think that might be a little much even for a creationists, but then, they are full of surprises.
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  12. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    2,985
    Quote Originally Posted by bootlen View Post
    Truths are intangible, are they not?
    Absolute truths that must be discovered via causation are invariably intangible. But do they exist? I think so.
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    what feature does absolute truth have that requires *either* a cause or no cause? I don't get it.
    If you wish to broaden this discussion to subjects outside of natural science, say mathematics… mathematics doesn't rely on causation, and it can effectively show "absolute" truth. I know the circumference of a circle will always be its diameter multiplied by pi. As far as I'm concern, this is absolute. This truth will never be modified.

    But can I prove with certainty that the laws of thermodynamics are absolute truths? No. It is possible they will be subject to some modification. But I'd like to think if they are not absolute truths, they are as close as we'll ever see in natural science. They've been around for 150 years, and they've never been shown to be incorrect. Even black holes obey thermodynamic law.

    Are you familiar with math anomaly known as Gabriel's horn? Graph y = 1 /x, and rotate the curve around the x-axis. Calculate the volume from x = 1 to infinity, and you get exactly pi. Calculate its surface area, and you get infinity. So Gabriel's horn is an object that has both a fixed volume and an infinite surface.

  13. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Eastern Washington
    Posts
    729
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    Right. Sorry for not being more clear. What I am saying is that you are barking up the wrong tree with evolution. If you want to say that God created, than the scientific alternative to creation is abiogensis.

    So, to make a case one would have to say that ALL of science is wrong.

    I think that might be a little much even for a creationists, but then, they are full of surprises.
    My reply was strictly based on the OP. The OP used creation vs. evolution, thusly so did I.

    I agree that for creation to be correct it would require all scientific findings to be found invalid and erroneous. I still feel that neither side will recant their stance on the argument, even if proven incorrect by irrefutable evidence.
    I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter.

    I will defend, to your death, my right to my opinion.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event