The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Safehands · 08-02-2017 11:56AM

FISMA. wrote: »

Science is the study of the natural world. The Greek word for natural is phusikḗ. That is, Physics.

As such, I would not expect Science to be a useful tool in analyzing an un-natural world (where entropy spontaneously increases) or super-natural world.

Einstein spoke of a "world" where superluminal (faster than the speed of light) speeds were possible (for particles that had no rest mass).

However, he believed that we would not be able to perceive nor analyze such a world/realm. Whether we could even retain its knowledge in our memory is doubtful.

In such a world, causative relationships, common to our daily experience, would break down.

In such a world, timelines break down: cause would precede the effect. For example, the arrow hits the target before it is shot.

In such a world, a God that knows your future would not be mutually exclusive with free will.

That is a great post, I love it.
In such a world you may find captain Kirk and Mr. Spock!

FISMA. wrote: »

In the ultimate irony, science fails to offer us a scientific test to demonstrate that our memories are working properly.

If science fails to offer a method by which we may test our memories, why use it to test for God?

I don't think it is an irony that science fails to offer us such a test for our memories, I think if they could devise more memory tests, scientists would leap on it. So it's not a failure.
Obviously they do test memories, I've had it done loads of times. So what type of memories are you referring to?

smacl · 08-02-2017 11:58AM

Absolam wrote: »

They might. Statistical impossibility is however a recognised term for a low probability event.

I don't think Conservapedia is a reference recognised by many statisticians, or for any rational thinker for that matter. If you google statistical impossibility, it seems to be a religious rather than mathematical concept, see a related math forum question here.

Absolam · 08-02-2017 12:39PM

smacl wrote: »

I don't think Conservapedia is a reference recognised by many statisticians, or for any rational thinker for that matter. If you google statistical impossibility, it seems to be a religious rather than mathematical concept, see a related math forum question here.

Oh I'm certainly not saying it's a good term... just that it's recognised. The fact that the conservapedia reference is the first google hit is a decent indication of that. Your Dr Math reference does back up what I was saying about statistical impossibility vs functional impossibility some pages back though.

smacl · 08-02-2017 01:04PM

Absolam wrote: »

Oh I'm certainly not saying it's a good term... just that it's recognised. The fact that the conservapedia reference is the first google hit is a decent indication of that. Your Dr Math reference does back up what I was saying about statistical impossibility vs functional impossibility some pages back though.

Both terms are nonsensical from a mathematical or statistical point of view though. If something is impossible it has zero probability, anything else and we are just talking about differing degrees of probability. It's reminiscent of Dan Quayle's quote;

Space is almost infinite. As a matter of fact, we think it is infinite

Safehands · 08-02-2017 01:15PM

smacl wrote: »

Space is almost infinite. As a matter of fact, we think it is infinite

'Infinity' is almost impossible for us to understand.

Nick Park · 08-02-2017 02:58PM

smacl wrote: »

Space is almost infinite. As a matter of fact, we think it is infinite

As I overheard someone say on a phone in an airport lounge last week, "We're living in a global world."

Leroy42 · 08-02-2017 03:24PM

hinault wrote: »

I agree with a lot of what you've written here. In fact I would go further to say that I think that God would want humanity to better understand His creation and if science achieves better understanding of His creation then that is great.

Hinault has blocked me so hopefully someone can answer for him, but where is the reasoning behind this statement?

The only "evidence" we have is that the last time Man attempted to find out more than God wanted us to know was when Adam & Eve tasted the apple and according to the bible each and everyone of use has been forced away from Eden because of that.

There is no evidence at all that God wants us to learn anything. Jesus, the most direct contact we have had, told us nothing about the understanding of His creation. He kept purely to the spiritual and our relationship with God.

Michael OBrien · 08-02-2017 06:48PM

hinault wrote: »

Except that some of the resident "scientists" here are of the view that "science" disproves the existence of God.
In reality, it the usual bunch of atheists/anti-theists choosing to believe in assigning every single crumb of credibility to anything which calls in to question the existence of God.

I agree with a lot of what you've written here. In fact I would go further to say that I think that God would want humanity to better understand His creation and if science achieves better understanding of His creation then that is great.

I don't generally post in this thread or the Christian forum in general, so I don't know what others say. However, as an atheist/anti-theist myself, I only bring up science issues when I think they get misrepresented by someone, theist, deist OR atheist. Depending on what definition of god is being discussed, science can or can not have a say in whether it is feasible. Obviously if a definition of a god includes historical or scientific elements that science disputes, that would cast doubt on the veracity of the claims. Surely you would agree there.
On your last point, sure a god that created intelligent life should not object to that life learning about the universe, as the alternative is death.

hinault · 08-02-2017 08:55PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

I don't generally post in this thread or the Christian forum in general, so I don't know what others say. However, as an atheist/anti-theist myself, I only bring up science issues when I think they get misrepresented by someone, theist, deist OR atheist. Depending on what definition of god is being discussed, science can or can not have a say in whether it is feasible. Obviously if a definition of a god includes historical or scientific elements that science disputes, that would cast doubt on the veracity of the claims. Surely you would agree there.
On your last point, sure a god that created intelligent life should not object to that life learning about the universe, as the alternative is death.

God isn't subject to definition. Of course we can attempt to try to describe God and His properties, but any description that is constructed cannot define God.

We know some of the properties which give us some understanding of God.

We know that God is eternal, we know that God is truth, we know that God loves every single person He has created, we know that God does not contain any trace of sin.

Athiest/anti-atheists belief in Scientism :P

Absolam · 09-02-2017 01:20AM

smacl wrote: »

Both terms are nonsensical from a mathematical or statistical point of view though. If something is impossible it has zero probability, anything else and we are just talking about differing degrees of probability. It's reminiscent of Dan Quayle's quote;

Well, not nonsensical; as your Dr Math page points out, things like being practically impossible are conventions, even if the words aren't actually used to mean what they necessarily ought to mean, we all still understand the ideas behind them. But yes, what we were discussing some pages ago when it came up was the difference between improbability and impossibilty and how the former is purposefully phrased and advanced to give the impression of being the latter.

Absolam · 09-02-2017 01:23AM

hinault wrote: »

Athiest/anti-atheists belief in Scientism :P

That seems a rather silly statement, do you not think? You've no basis for asserting someone has a belief in anything from a lack of a particular belief, or even opposition to a particular belief. Unless all your reasoning is based on faith rather than evidence?

Michael OBrien · 09-02-2017 01:26PM

hinault wrote: »

God isn't subject to definition. Of course we can attempt to try to describe God and His properties, but any description that is constructed cannot define God.

We know some of the properties which give us some understanding of God.

We know that God is eternal, we know that God is truth, we know that God loves every single person He has created, we know that God does not contain any trace of sin.

Athiest/anti-atheists belief in Scientism :P

You are contradicting yourself. Now I don't want to infringe on any rules for the christian thread so I will say that while you are free to believe in a god with whatever characteristics you like, you cannot say you KNOW these properties are true. As you stated "God isn't subject to definition".

Anti-atheists would be theists, which ironically do believe scientism is a thing. Kudos.

Leroy42 · 09-02-2017 01:30PM

hinault wrote: »

We know that God is eternal, we know that God is truth, we know that God loves every single person He has created, we know that God does not contain any trace of sin.

Athiest/anti-atheists belief in Scientism :P

I think what you meant to say was the following:

I think that God is eternal, I think that God is truth, I think that God loves every single person He has created, I think that God does not contain any trace of sin.

To assert that you know implies that you have evidence, which quite clearly you do not (as the supernatural is by definition outside our ability to understand within the natural world)

hinault · 09-02-2017 04:42PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

You are contradicting yourself. Now I don't want to infringe on any rules for the christian thread so I will say that while you are free to believe in a god with whatever characteristics you like, you cannot say you KNOW these properties are true. As you stated "God isn't subject to definition".

Anti-atheists would be theists, which ironically do believe scientism is a thing. Kudos.

You miss the point entirely.

God cannot be defined and is therefore not subject to definition.

How can God who is literally beyond all human comprehension be reduced to a human construct called definition? God can't be defined, given that infinite context.

At best we have are some insights about God.
Jesus Christ is God incarnate. Therefore the only truthful insight that we have about God is from Jesus Christ.

Did Jesus tell us everything about God? For the Christian, Jesus taught the essentials about what God is. Are these essentials definitions? I don't think so.

I don't consider the insights which Jesus gave us as definitions. Definitions are finite concepts. It is impossible to apportion finite concepts to that which is infinite.

Michael OBrien · 09-02-2017 05:43PM

hinault wrote: »

You miss the point entirely.

God cannot be defined and is therefore not subject to definition.

How can God who is literally beyond all human comprehension be reduced to a human construct called definition? God can't be defined, given that infinite context.

At best we have are some insights about God.
Jesus Christ is God incarnate. Therefore the only truthful insight that we have about God is from Jesus Christ.

Did Jesus tell us everything about God? For the Christian, Jesus taught the essentials about what God is. Are these essentials definitions? I don't think so.

I don't consider the insights which Jesus gave us as definitions. Definitions are finite concepts. It is impossible to apportion finite concepts to that which is infinite.

You keep making up your own rules, including about how words are used. Definitions can be whatever we want them to be. We don't have anything to base assertions about a god against. Since the rules here protect posters from having to defend their positions on belief I will say no more.

hinault · 09-02-2017 05:59PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

You keep making up your own rules, including about how words are used. Definitions can be whatever we want them to be. We don't have anything to base assertions about a god against. Since the rules here protect posters from having to defend their positions on belief I will say no more.

I'm not making any rules.

I'm simply suggestion that it is very problematic to try to define what is infinite.

Saying that something is infinite isn't a definition of infinity.

Leroy42 · 09-02-2017 06:14PM

You do keep making your own rules.

'We know that God is this, that God wants that, that we need to do this, that only doing this brings us closer.'

You, and anyone else, knows nothing of the sort. You can guess, claim even say that it is likely, but not know.

And the worst part is that people have used this 'knowledge' of God to carry out many heinous acts against those they think are going against what God wants. Homosexuals, people of different faith, people who question faith etc etc.

Safehands · 09-02-2017 07:47PM

hinault wrote: »

We know that God loves every single person He has created.

Love is unconditional, it is selfless. I love my children. I do not require them to love me back. I do not require them to tell me that they adore me. I do not require that they are always good or behave themselves

If it is within my remit, I would never, ever have any harm or hurt happen to them. That is love.

If we take the story of great flood, God decided to drown every person on Earth, men women and little children, except for one family. I can tell you that that is not an act of love, not even close! So we cannot say that God loved those poor kids he drowned. To even think he did shows a very poor understanding of the term "love".

hinault · 09-02-2017 08:01PM

Safehands wrote: »

Love is unconditional, it is selfless. I love my children. I do not require them to love me back. I do not require them to tell me that they adore me. I do not require that they are always good or behave themselves

If it is within my remit, I would never, ever have any harm or hurt happen to them. That is love.

So if your child murders someone else, you'd condone what they did?

looksee · 09-02-2017 08:58PM

hinault wrote: »

So if your child murders someone else, you'd condone what they did?

That does not follow at all. You can disapprove of, or detest, or utterly reject something that your child has done, it does not mean that you will necessarily cease loving them.

Safehands · 09-02-2017 11:03PM

hinault wrote: »

So if your child murders someone else, you'd condone what they did?

You know, I fully appreciate that people have sincerely held beliefs.
What I don't understand is why reason and logic have to go out the window when certain realities are pointed out. For example, to say God loves everyone who was ever born clearly falls outside our understanding of what love actually is. Why is it the case that believers cannot see that their beliefs quite regularly make no sense and cannot be factual?

hinault · 09-02-2017 11:15PM

Safehands wrote: »

You know, I fully appreciate that people have sincerely held beliefs.

Shure you do :rolleyes:

Safehands wrote:

Love is unconditional, it is selfless. I love my children. I do not require them to love me back. I do not require them to tell me that they adore me. I do not require that they are always good or behave themselves

If it is within my remit, I would never, ever have any harm or hurt happen to them. That is love.

So if your child murders someone else, you'd condone what they did?

Safehands · 09-02-2017 11:38PM

hinault wrote: »

Shure you do :rolleyes:

So if your child murders someone else, you'd condone what they did?

Condone, no. Still love them, yes.

hinault · 09-02-2017 11:40PM

Safehands wrote: »

Condone, no. Still love them, yes.

OK so you agree that your child should be punished?

Safehands · 10-02-2017 01:09AM

hinault wrote: »

OK so you agree that your child should be punished?

I would want him to be subject to the laws of our land but I would want him to be safe.
I don't agree with the death penalty, especially for children!

hinault · 10-02-2017 01:55AM

Safehands wrote: »

I would want him to be subject to the laws of our land but I would want him to be safe.
I don't agree with the death penalty, especially for children!

I didn't ask you if you agreed or disagreed with the death penalty.

I asked you if your child should be punished, if they committed murder.
So if you child committed murder, you'd want them to punished for the crime that they committed?

smacl · 10-02-2017 08:05AM

hinault wrote: »

I asked you if your child should be punished, if they committed murder. So if you child committed murder, you'd want them to punished for the crime that they committed?

One thing we do as parents is raise our children to be responsible for their actions. At a younger age we punish them for their many minor misdemeanours in part to teach them what is acceptable and what is not. Some of us also put a considerable emphasis on being kind, happy, and generous naff as it might sound. If one of my children murdered someone, I would expect them to be punished, and I would expect them to accept it too. I wouldn't want them to be punished, as wanting anyone to be punished for anything is a rather hateful expression of vengeful desire. Who enjoys punishing people and why?

Absolam · 10-02-2017 08:36AM

hinault wrote: »

I asked you if your child should be punished, if they committed murder. So if you child committed murder, you'd want them to punished for the crime that they committed?

Why not rehabilitated? Or reconciled? Is there a reason to focus on punishment?

Timberrrrrrrr · 10-02-2017 09:47AM

hinault wrote: »

I didn't ask you if you agreed or disagreed with the death penalty.

I asked you if your child should be punished, if they committed murder.
So if you child committed murder, you'd want them to punished for the crime that they committed?

What of the many thousands of pregnant women? Doesn't Christianity teach that abortion is wrong and that the unborn are innocent? Why did "god" murder all those innocent unborn?

He has me blocked (that club gets larger by the day) if someone would like to quote me or ask him that question.

Leroy42 · 10-02-2017 10:01AM

But Hinault, how do you know he punishes anybody? There is no proof in this life that he does, as many 'good' people seem to suffer and many 'evil' people seem to live quite happy lives.

So nobody actually knows if we ever face any punishment at all.

So based on your belief, God is a loving god, that seeks vengeance and punishment on ill-defined crimes. Homsexuality is bad but we can eat shellfish. Slavery is bad, unless it isn't. Mass murder is bad, unless they don't have the required faith.

And what parent, anywhere, would eternally punish all their family for the sins of the first sons and daughters. Any other children born after the incident are given the same punishment and refused any interaction with the parent.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments