- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 17,343
- Reaction score
- 2,876
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Really? How so?It disproves the most literal reading of the bible...
Really? How so?It disproves the most literal reading of the bible...
Really? How so?
Ok... but that doesnt preclude other life on other planets, it just means that, taken literally, this life belongs to God.I'm no biblical scholar, but in terms of specifics it talks about the creation of the earth in a radically different way than it talks about the heavens. For example, the earth belongs to man but the heavans belong to god.
"Seems weird" isnt "proof".The idea that he created the rest of the universe so we'd have something to look at at night and then he just happened to pop life on there too seems weird.
So? The writers of the New Testament were witnesses to the events described therein. You cannlt expect them to have written about occourances on other planets...He sent his one son down to earth, but there is no talk of him doing a tour of other planets, etc.
Not sure how that matters.Plus other planets are just different. They have different religions, different length days, different color skies, maybe no seas at all, etc.
Again, not sure how that matters.Much of the literal text of the bible would be completely unapplicable there. So is the idea that they would have their own god and bible that is different? That seems pretty problematic... Or they would have no god? He never bothered speaking to them?
Not at all. God coule very well have created the earth in a manner that makes evolution appear to be sound.But, that doesn't really matter. People who read the bible ultra literally already have to do some pretty whacky mental gymnastics to get it to make any sense... ie- God created fossils to confuse us and test our faith... The literal bible read is already completely incompatible with science.
Heck -- if you fiddle with the length of a day, its entirely possible that God creatated everything -through- evolution.
If we can make video game engines, then a larger being can create the Universe.
One of the explanations I've read regarding the virgin birth part of the story is that in the particular sect Mary was reportedly a member of, a virgin was a woman who had not yet given birth, and not a woman who had not had sex.
It seems to me that many in the Christian community have moved away from practicing religion based on the "miracle" events, and have moved toward following some of the philosophy.
What necessitates that something had to?Sounds grand.
Who made the larger being?
Really? How so?
Please, deomstrate.The Bible, as written, is both internally inconsistent and falsified by external reality.
What necessitates that something had to?
For that matter, if there is an answer, that necessitates that it is an answer you can understand?
Then your question to that effect is meaingles.Nothing.Originally Posted by Goobieman
What necessitates that something had to?
I'm sorry -- I realized I had a typo.Yes
"Because" is not an answer.
This is a claim, not a demonstration.Already did.
The Flood is bogus.
Then your question to that effect is meaingles.
For that matter, if there is an answer, what necessitates that it is an answer you can understand?
Really? How so?
This is a claim, not a demonstration.
Non sequitur. Theres no necessary relationship between those two concepts.It means that there's no need to question "who" created the universe, since that presupposes that the origins of the universe are found in a deliberate act, which raises the question of the origions of the deliberative entity that did it.
Ok... but an answer that you do not understand IS an answer, even though you do not understand it.Because "because" isn't an answer.
So you're going to leave your claim unsupported, and therefore, meaningless.I ain't gonna bother explaining that the presence of brook trout in mountain streams is refutation of Noah's Myth.
Non sequitur. Theres no necessary relationship between those two concepts.
Ok... but an answer that you do not understand IS an answer, even though you do not understand it.
For instance:
You ask: What created God?
Answer: Nothing. He has always been.
You may not understand how that can be, but that you do not understand how that can be in no way precludes it being that.
This is, of course, completely ridiculous.An answer not understood is the equivalent of "because", and not an answer to anyone mentally older than four.
So you're going to leave your claim unsupported, and therefore, meaningless.
Good by me.
You may suppprt your claim at your leisure.Are you denying that trout exist?
This is, of course, completely ridiculous.
The soundness of an answer is in no way dependent on the questioner's ability to understand that answer.
You may suppprt your claim at your leisure.
Until then, it is meaningless.
No... I'm saying that the quantum mechanics answer is sound, regardless of if the 5 yerar old gets it or not.So what you're saying is that a five year old should be satisfied with a complete quantum-mechanical answer, complete with formulas answer to why the sun shines.