Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

So, if sin is disobedience of the law, the law in question is NT law?

In this day and age, it is. The Mosaic Law, as covenant, has expired and...well, has not expired either. Since the Cross of Christ, the New Covenant has been in force.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Are acts of prayer and medical attention equally effective?

All prayers by a true Christian although answered; although the answer sometimes may not be what the Christian wanted. God's will will always prevail in the end.

[boxcar]

By the way...I thought I'd drop this little bomb on you before I sign off the night. According to my M-W under the synonyms section of the definition of "random" as an adjective, it reads: [i]RANDOM, HAPHAZARD, CASUAL mean determined by accident rather than by design. Random stresses lack of definite aim, fixed goal or regular procedure.

Stuff this into your hash pipe and puff on it... Night, night.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Don't you recall that when several months ago I presented the Anthropic Principle to you as an argument against the probability of atheistic naturalism, you essentially retorted that if all those 30+ or so cosmic variables were different or even didn't exist, life could have evolved anyway by adapting itself to a different a very different scheme of evolution.

First of all I must point out that the Anthropic Principle bases its claim on physical constants, not variables.

About those constants, let's consider two of them: the permitivity constant and the permeability constant. In SI units the former = 8.85E-12, the latter = 1.26E-6. Multiply the two together.

8.85E-12 x 1.26E-6 = 11.51E-18

Take the square root.

sqrt(11.51E-18) = 3.34E-9

Now take the reciprocal.

1.0 / 3.34E-9 = 3.0E8 = the speed of light.

This is no accident, no mere coincidence. It works not only with SI units but with CGS units and with SAE units. (SI = System International, CGI = Centimeter-Gram-Second, SAE = Society of American Engineers) The speed of light can be derived from electromagnetic constants. Ergo, the speed of light is not a primary contant and as such contributes nothing to the "fine tuning" argument.

Furthermore the permeability constant is also not a primary constant since it can be derived from the permitivity constant.

Moving on. There are four primary forces: electric, gravitational, strong and weak. Absolutely everything we know is through our interaction with these four. Even our five senses come down to these four. I submit that all physical constants can be derived from just four primary constants: permitivity, gravity, strong, weak.

It gets better. Scientists at CERN are working on the Unified Field Theory. If they succeed (I would say when they succeed) then every physical constant will come down to just one (four max). Ergo, the Anthropic Principle is a very weak argument that falls flat on its face. To argue otherwise is special pleading.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No male millennial, yet, has claimed that his sexbot told him that it loved him.

The operative word being "yet".

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Well...I didn't. But I have repeatedly stated that in an atheistic materialistic worldview, there is no purpose, design, or intentionality to this universe. This universe is simply a huge cosmic accident. It must be because purpose, design and intentionality require intellect.

You seem to grasp the concept. What is your point?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Prove it. You're saying that gravity is necessary.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying gravity is an observable fact.

Originally Posted by boxcar

How do you know this is the case with all the gazillions of universes that you and other scientists claim exist?

Where did you get gazillions? It's eleven.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And if gravity is necessary, then why not all the other known variables in this universe that makes life possible, according to the Anthropic Principle?

Already covered that.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

By the way...I thought I'd drop this little bomb on you before I sign off the night. According to my M-W under the synonyms section of the definition of "random" as an adjective, it reads: [i]RANDOM, HAPHAZARD, CASUAL mean determined by accident rather than by design. Random stresses lack of definite aim, fixed goal or regular procedure.

Stuff this into your hash pipe and puff on it... Night, night.

Mine says without definite aim, direction, rule or method". So what's your point?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

All prayers by a true Christian although answered; although the answer sometimes may not be what the Christian wanted. God's will will always prevail in the end.

How do you propose we test that theory?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But you can't be certain about that either.

But if I win more than I lose I'll not change my strategy.

Pascal's wager does not work in poker, nor in real life.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

Then you've mis-titled the thread - you should have called it "Boxcar's version of Christianity" - 'cause the "Religion I" thread was rarely an open-minded discussion of religion with all your narrow-minded posts....

The thread is definitely mis-titled. I posted this on page 1, and Boxcar has continued to deliver his tripe up as some form of ultimate truth.

I feel sympathy for the Christians reading through this thread, which I'm now convinced does not include the OP.

Which leads me to wonder, what really is going on here?

a. Boxcar is really on to something, and the rest of us will just be lucky to avoid him and his ilk by going to Hell? (seems like a good deal right now)

b. Boxcar is mentally ill with some sort of God-complex, and someday soon we'll see CNN's lead story about his untimely end pushing cyanide laced Kool-Aid on his unsuspecting flock? (this can happen when you start talking to God)

c. Boxcar is really working for Team Satan, intent on driving as many people away from Christ and the Bible as possible with his insufferable diatribes? (this makes the most sense to me - I'd put his saved vs. alienated ratio at somewhere around 1 to 47)

d. Boxcar is wrong, I'm wrong, Actor is wrong, and we all get squished tomorrow by a large boot zooming down from space like in a bad episode of the Twilight Zone? (at this point, I don't think we'd be that lucky...)

e. Other?

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by boxcar

... for YOU are not ready to meet your Maker and Judge.

At this point, that's hardly a bad thing, assuming of course the filtering process leaves us with Boxcar and others like him.

Had coffee this week with my former manager, and the topic of the general loss of morality and religious values came up. I knew he was a conservative Christian going into the conversation. I did not realize how knowledgeable he was about the Bible, and found out he's a preacher's kid. Very smart guy, and I liked working for him. I respect his opinions.

We had a rather animated conversation, where each of us observed and UNDERSTOOD the boundaries of incompatible views. He framed his arguments in terms of his faith, quoting the Bible early and often, and didn't hesitate to be judgemental about certain interpretations (he's not a big fan of Mormons). But we agreed on so many things, sharing that Judgemental gene, that it was a pleasant, non-Boxcar like experience.

He bought the coffee, and offered up assistance when I return to the job market within the next few months. My kind of Christian.

Something tells me that Boxcar would have spit on me, yelled and called me names, throwing a tantrum, and certainly not wanting to associate with me in any way. Kind of like those Navigators I met in college. Not my kind of Christian.

Which is why actions speak louder than words, and leading by example is a powerful statement.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

How do you propose we test that theory?

It's not a theory. It's a biblical truth.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Mine says without definite aim, direction, rule or method". So what's your point?

Oh...maybe that a random event is an accidental one, according to M-W's definition? Just a wild, crazy guess....

[boxcar]

Mr. Pirate, sir, I'm not surprised at all by your wild, irrational anti-Boxcar rant. Why would I expect anything different from someone who holds closely to his bosom an irrational, self-refuting worldview?

But just try to remember, it's only the sticks and stones that can break my bones...