Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You don't understand I am not modifying it all, let alone with buts. Did you finish reading Romans Chapter 5? While Corinthians summarizes the entire issue better, it is spelled out in Romans 5:18: In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all.The language in 5:12 is quite clear. I understand why you want to modify it with "....but... but.... but what about this."
It is known that the vast majority of species that lived on this rock are now extinct. If an asteroid had not exterminated the dinos it is likely that man would not exist.Nature apparently does care about outcomes. Otherwise there wouldn’t be a preferences for life to survive built into the very fabric of living things.
Sorry, not buying it. Science is skepticism, faith is acceptance. Science requires proof, faith does not.
.
www.merriam-webster.com
www.merriam-webster.com
yet we have found many fossils of non-human apes that are bipedal. They are no longer alive but their skeletons exist.For example, we see no apes or monkeys that are bipedal.
My opinion?Further, your opinion of the modification in a different verse is mere opinion.
How do you know? Were you there?
Not at all. I am merely presenting studies of ancient cultures and how their way of thinking differs from modern culture, speaking modern English. I was not there. I have simply spent time studying Biblical cultures, history, and languages. I am not offering my opinion, but a portion of what I have learned from others with a great more knowledge than I will ever have.
I'm sorry but I don't have enough respect for your scientific chops to accept your statement that evolution has no proof. The trillions of fossils that we have found are proof, the biology we know is proof, the geology we know is proof. When you write "we would see a cell come into being from primordial stuff" we are show how little you understand of the science. Do you even know why I can say that?
Seems God didn't want the dinos to exist so he sent an asteroid....or a flood. HmmmIt is known that the vast majority of species that lived on this rock are now extinct. If an asteroid had not exterminated the dinos it is likely that man would not exist.Nature apparently does care about outcomes. Otherwise there wouldn’t be a preferences for life to survive built into the very fabric of living things.
There a description of cafeteria religion where believers will reject what is actually written in their holy books in favor of what they would prefer to see.
I'm afraid that this loops back to the fact of many unknown authors whose tales and fables were never proofread by the gods.
You don't understand I am not modifying it all, let alone with buts. Did you finish reading Romans Chapter 5? While Corinthians summarizes the entire issue better, it is spelled out in Romans 5:18: In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all.The language in 5:12 is quite clear. I understand why you want to modify it with "....but... but.... but what about this."
In other words, the whole unit again, and all of mankind is of that unit.
Sorry, not buying it. Science is skepticism, faith is acceptance. Science requires proof, faith does not.
Basically, we find out that science is not skepticism but acceptance could be acceptance of a scientific theory. Also, skepticism could be doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation). Thus, you had it backwards and atheists are usually wrong
Read it and weep:
Definition of SKEPTICISM
an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object; the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain; the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics… See the full definition
Definition of ACCEPTANCE
the quality or state of being accepted or acceptable; the act of accepting something or someone : the fact of being accepted : approval… See the full definition
Furthermore, you have no proof of evolution. It's all circumstantial evidence that is not observable. For example, we see no apes or monkeys that are bipedal. That which you claim to be billions of years old such as coal, diamond, and fossils have been able to be radiocarbon dated to around 10,000 years. Rocks and fossils will crumble and turn to dust in that long a time. due to natural processes.
It is known that the vast majority of species that lived on this rock are now extinct. If an asteroid had not exterminated the dinos it is likely that man would not exist.
I am continually impressed by your ignorance and arrogance. Below are the White Cliffs of Dover. They are composed of the microscopic skeletons of marine plankton. There may be a trillion in this photo alone. Of all the fossils found on the planet, none have been shown to violate the ToE. Not a one.There are no trillions of fossils which goes to show that science backs me up and you are wrong once again.
Do you have another hypothesis for the global layer of iridium associated with the demise of the dinos?It is known that the vast majority of species that lived on this rock are now extinct. If an asteroid had not exterminated the dinos it is likely that man would not exist.
This is really embarrassing. The atheist scientists are still arguing whether it was large asteroid, comet, or a supervolcano in India (Deccan Traps) that killed the dinosaurs. Chicxulub may not have been a large asteroid as the evidence for it isn't convincing. The atheist scientists just accepted this theory because it fits with something from the skies to kill the dinosaurs and not the global flood. Even today, the large asteroid hit is to wipe out human civilization and cause the end of the world, but enough evidence just isn't there.
Says you because you think intelligence is an accident. I say it’s built into the fabric of existence and it is inevitable.It is known that the vast majority of species that lived on this rock are now extinct. If an asteroid had not exterminated the dinos it is likely that man would not exist.Nature apparently does care about outcomes. Otherwise there wouldn’t be a preferences for life to survive built into the very fabric of living things.
I’m not the droid you are looking for.Seems God didn't want the dinos to exist so he sent an asteroid....or a flood. HmmmIt is known that the vast majority of species that lived on this rock are now extinct. If an asteroid had not exterminated the dinos it is likely that man would not exist.Nature apparently does care about outcomes. Otherwise there wouldn’t be a preferences for life to survive built into the very fabric of living things.
Marine fossils don't support a global flood a few thousand years ago.I'm sorry but I don't have enough respect for your scientific chops to accept your statement that evolution has no proof. The trillions of fossils that we have found are proof, the biology we know is proof, the geology we know is proof. When you write "we would see a cell come into being from primordial stuff" we are show how little you understand of the science. Do you even know why I can say that?
There are no trillions of fossils which goes to show that science backs me up and you are wrong once again. The fossil record does not have the transition or intermediate fossils. Instead, we find that the completeness of the fossil record deserves recognition after more than 150 years of fossil collecting and more than 200 million fossils found. Most of it is marine fossils which back up Noah's Flood.
As for the rest of your wrong science and misplaced snobbery, we find that you have nothing to back your claims up.
You are not hearing me. I am modifying nothing. I am offering possible historical insights into the thoughts of bygone cultures, and giving examples that support those insights.Your introduction of different verses in the hopes of changing what is in 5:12 is actually unimportant to me. It does, however, demonstrate that weird propensity of religionists to ignore what is written in their holy texts and to re-write the texts to fit their personal preferences. I must note that your introduction of verses, out of context with regard to 5:12 tends not to support your opinion that 5:12 doesn't mean what it clearly states.
My skepticism for believing in opinions is borne of an exclusive inability for the one offering as opinion that one verse abrogates another to share any indication such an abrogation is true.
I'll also note that in terms of interpreting holy texts, you can make most any verse abrogate another as their is no standard of proof available for any of it.
.
not sure what if any of your response made any sense ...
time is subjective - so what is so special about your definition -
Being so, then Relativity and other theories implying time as an entity are false. Simple as that.
no, the elements of the periodic table do not represent chaos, the point of the post.
You require of a chaotic moment, however your interpretation of metaphysical forces must require of a cause instead.
Forces -regardless of being physical or not- require of a source.
Same as well, chaos is not needed when changes in vibration frequency happens.
If the universe were to be formed by forces in order to become physically existent, then the source of the forces changed their vibration frequency. Again, no need for such a chaotic moment.
this statement of yours is the reason for the response - chaos did not form the universe the opposite is true from a momentary chaos the universe through the metaphysical forces assembled a physical state of existence of which the relationship between the two continue to evolve, physiology and from the present there may be as yet an unknown form yet to be known - spiritual independant from its physical dependence. accomplished through the religion of antiquity.
In your scenario you evade the source of the metaphysical forces.
When I do studies, I pay no attention to the further consequences but to the primary target which is the root, the beginning, the cause of those consequences. In your statement, you base your hypothesis on the consequences (metaphysical sources) which became the source of a following phenomenon.
At one point you must recognize that there is a primeval source before those metaphysical forces.
You won't be able to evade and avoid it.
.At one point you must recognize that there is a primeval source before those metaphysical forces.
.I believe you have built your beliefs on a very shaky foundation that does not support your elaborations. You begin with the assumption that there is a God and then you have invented you own language, "no thing". What you're basically saying is that creation was either a natural or supernatural event. That's fine but you can't use semantics to answer that. Your logical framework lacks any real evidence from the real world. I know you cite 'first cause' and thermodynamics but I honestly feel you are working backwards from a belief in God to a proof of God. If you started from we do know, and what we don't know, you might posit a creator but not a Jesus.At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.Sorry, which logical argument are you referring to?And yet I presented a logical argument that you have been unable to refute one single point nor even to make an attempt to refute so I am wondering how you can believe what you just wrote.I'm wondering why intelligent people believe in things that appear to me to be illogical, unprovable, and totally lacking evidence. I've come, slowly, that faith is a lot like alchohol. A little makes you feel good and does you no harm. Too much and you may become addicted that may lead to serious problems.I’m not seeing that because you are here searching for something you are missing.You're right, I don't care too much about winning, I'm more concerned with just being happy.
So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.
If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale - like you do - then everything you see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that you will agree with or accept. Whereas if you were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world you would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.
But since this is my argument I will use my perception of God because your perception of God is a fairy tale and designed to get fairy tale answers instead of seriously considering the proposition. My perception of God is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us. God exists outside of our four dimension space time. So my premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.
So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.
We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create. In other words, it's not an accident that intelligence arose. The universe is an intelligence creating machine.
The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.
If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.
All I have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if you assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.
But wait... there's more.
If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.
Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.
So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.
Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.
If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.
This is the basis for my belief. So what is the basis for your belief?
My beliefs are based on my knowledge of the natural world. I have never, to my knowledge, seen a supernatural being or event. I believe I can trace an unbroken line from the BB to today. I don't see the need to resort to the supernatural to explain existence.
.I have never, to my knowledge, seen a supernatural being or event.
I am continually impressed by your ignorance and arrogance. Below are the White Cliffs of Dover. They are composed of the microscopic skeletons of marine plankton. There may be a trillion in this photo alone. Of all the fossils found on the planet, none have been shown to violate the ToE. Not a one.There are no trillions of fossils which goes to show that science backs me up and you are wrong once again.
