What would it take?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by answers, Oct 29, 2010.

  1. Kennyc Registered Senior Member

    I will post relevant and responsive posts all I want. You asked, I responded. If you don't believe what the good book says then it's either fiction or myth but certainly not truth.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. SolusCado Registered Senior Member

    The problem with that statement is that your posts are NOT relevant - something you would know if you bothered reading other posts. And your last sentence doesn't even make sense:

    "If you don't believe what the good book says" (a claim neither of us have made, but whatever...) "then it's either fiction or myth but certainly not truth." So it is only fiction or myth if we don't believe what it says? Since when does belief in something dictate its veracity? Or are you simply saying that anyone who doesn't believe what it says must then believe it is either fiction or myth?

    So, are you simply saying that because you don't believe what it says, then you believe it is either fiction or myth? Fine, you are of course free to believe whatever you like, but you tossing out mindless opinions is relatively useless - tossing them out as though they are fact because they are your opinion is dishonest. So, you are at best useless, and at worst dishonest.

    Once more, I'm proud for you.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Kennyc Registered Senior Member

    Far from it. Enjoy!
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member


    From a vedic perspective, a day of Lord Brahma's, the first created being in this universe, lasts for 4.32 billion years, from our perspective. This is equal to one breath (inhale) of God (Krishna/Vishnu).

    Hopefully this piece of information will give you some idea of my understanding of creation from the perspective of God.


    Time (no pun) is not on my side right now.
    I will respond soon. Thanks.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  8. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member


    It is however intended to reveal the origin of the physical processes, ie, God did it.

    Anything conducted by people has the potential to used badly.
    What is your explanation for the 'piltdown man' fiasco?

    Genesis states that "the earth was void and without form", not that it didn't exist and then it existed.
    "Formation of matter" was meant as fashioning what was present, not creation.

    You expressed agreement of the primary definition of "and", I merely used its own example.

    Based on my chosed definition, there is every reason to think that is how light was created.
    Your objection was one of linguistics, now you must see that it could mean that. Surely!

    It would not have to be a science textbook to contain information of pre-universe origins.

    Why would such an explanation be regarded any different to what the scripture already contains. They are both information which cannot be universaly proven?

    And that would make them correct. Would it not?

  9. queengeek Registered Member

    With what I have both seen and experienced in my life there is nothing that could ever change my point of view.
  10. SolusCado Registered Senior Member

    Right, so why are you so confident that evolutionary processes are not in fact HOW God did it?

    More bad science. I never suggested religions are the only source of bad science, though quite frankly the piltdown man fiasco was probably in reaction to religious opposition anyway. All of these are excellent examples of why religion needs to stick to religion, and science needs to stick to science. It is just as absurd for the atheists on here to suggest that science somehow disproves God as it is for the theists to suggest that the Bible (or whatever religious scriptures they use) provides a scientific context for anything.

    Yes, AFTER God created the Heavens and the earth (also AFTER God created light), it was noted that the earth was void and without form, much like matter in the moments immediately following the Big Bang. It wasn't until later (as described in both Genesis and our current scientific models) that the earth (matter) coalesced into something with form.

    But that it "can" doesn't mean that it "does", and when there is a mountain of other scientific evidence that suggests that it DOESN'T, it becomes time to reevaluate what you think it means.

    This is new - "pre-universe origins"? I'm afraid I don't see how this is relevant to the current conversation at all. Care to expound?

    Again, don't know what you are talking about. What explanation? What "both information" are you referring to?

    Just answer flat out - do you believe the ancient peoples of the Old Testament had knowledge of particle physics or not? Enough of this worming around...

    So you DO believe the ancient peoples of the OT did indeed have knowledge of particle physics? WHY do you believe that? At what point do you believe that information was lost, and why?

    No, you didn't. You merely pointed out that you believed the Bible was saying more, and you gave no reasoning for that, other than a generic "It's God, so it CAN mean more". As noted above, just because words CAN have additional meaning doesn't mean they necessarily DO - and when evidence points to the additional meaning you want to impose being false, it is only the fool who tries to stick with the additional meaning. You have still given absolutely ZERO reasoning to support your belief. You have merely stated (again and again) that it IS your belief. Which is fine - but acknowledge that it is your own belief and move on - don't try to insist that it is the only possible interpretation of Genesis... that it is somehow "what it actually says", and other interpretations (which are arguably CLOSER to "what it actually says", since they don't attach so much additional meaning) are in fact NOT "what it actually says".

    Yes, of course - that is my entire position. Do you disagree? (If not, why are you even bringing it up?

    Obviously - what does that have to do with my statement?

    Starting with the fact that sound doesn't travel through a vacuum, so for sound to have been responsible for the genesis of matter and energy it would have to have existing matter and energy through which to reverbate. If one it so make such a claim, where did the initial matter and energy come from? And for that matter, sound can only manipulate matter, not create it. In fact, according to the law of conservation of energy, it is not possible to "create" matter at all - much less from this elusive "sound" that wouldn't have had any matter through which to reverbate in the first place. The difference (to answer your second question) is that I am not imbuing a natural process with Godlike powers. I am imbuing an omnipotent God with Godlike powers. (He created time/space/matter/energy through a non-natural mechanism - i.e. the Big Bang [or, if we find that our universe and it's Big Bang is just one of many, then whatever created the multiverse].) Since He created nature, it follows that the creation itself could not have been natural - since there was no such thing as "natural" until He created nature. You are trying to suggest that He used a "natural" process to create Nature itself, and then once it was created He then used UNNATURAL processes to further the progress of Creation. It is wholly illogical, and once more - there is no foundation for your belief, beyond the fact that you CHOOSE (your words) to use a specific potential definition for Scriptural content. What makes that so abhorrent to me is that you can CHOOSE a definition for Scripture that is perfectly in alignment with logic and scientific evidence, and yet you CHOOSE not to. It's like knowing that stepping off the edge of a cliff will cause you to fall to your death, but you choose to not believe it "just because". I personally can only understand such a thing as childish stubborness.

    Yes, of course - but I recognize that that is my BELIEF - one that I have based on faith.

    You just said gibberish. "God did it" is the answer to what question? And, to the question of "HOW God did it", you have yet to provide an explanation - unless you are suggesting the sounds waves from His voice was the How - which once more is completely irrational impossibilities (if one is to stay in alignment with the physical laws of the universe). If your explanation to THAT is "Because it's God", then once again - "God did it" is INDEED your explanation.

    By your own admission, you CHOOSE to believe a specific definition is the correct one. Since there are multiple definitions, you have CHOSEN one specific interpretation. The fact that everything you derive from that choice is illogical and irrational is what mandates a DIFFERENT interpretation. As to the statement that the writing is "understandably clear", you have provided absolutely no justification for that statement. Why choose one definition over another? How is one definition "understandably clear" and another is not? (Particularly since the one you choose leads to horribly flawed science, and the one you refuse to accept fits in perfectly with everything we know.)

Share This Page