Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

One does not have to be a scientific genius to know the most basic scientific truths of the modern era. Just a proper education and some critical judgement. And although peer review was a topic of another thread created by some righties trying to call the entire subject into question, peer review remains a valid means of evaluating concepts. No matter the absurd excuses the alternate-science fake news aficionados create to justify their alternate reality universe.

You are amazingly deficient in the most basic understanding of the way things work. It's evident your education goes as far the 17th century and no further.

And you are amazingly gullible to not see through the world's attempt at the biggest hoax upon mankind -- a hoax designed to defraud the peoples of this world from their hard-earned money.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Gravity is a force of attraction that exists between any two masses, any two bodies, any two particles.

Not necessarily so. If one mass. body or particle is matter and the other is antimatter then gravity may well be repulsive. That's very hard to test given that gravity is the weakest force and all antimatter observed so far has been subatomic particles which exist only for a short time before they are annihilated.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

For the classical theist, there are logical arguments why this cannot be so.

"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." - William Shakespeare

Is there any scientific logical reason it cannot be so?

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Sooo...from Day 1 through Day 3, what other particles in the non-existent universe existed besides those on earth? Again...for there to be a universe, as we understand the term today, its three fundamental components that form its basic structure had to have been in place, i.e. space, matter and time. But time was not created until Day 4 when God also created the sun, moon and stars which govern the movement of time. Therefore, the physical laws of the universe could not have been operational until God created the rest of the cosmos on Day 4. You can't have physical laws governing a non-existent universe, which was the case until Day 4. All there was for the first three days were the "makings" of a universe. Up until Day 4, all that existed in the physical cosmos was the planet earth. Until Day 4, there was a universe that was "under construction" but not operational -- not functional. But when God created the entire cosmos on the fourth day, then the natural laws of the universe were also created simultaneously to maintain and govern its operation.

I can play nice, too. Have a nice evening, sir.

In the battle of the literalist creationists, the folks at "Answers in Genesis" disagree with you regarding "time"...

"Actually, time did not begin on Day Four. Let's take a look at what Genesis says about that day...although the argument is increasingly common, nowhere in the text does it say that time began on the fourth day. Instead, God made the sun, moon, and stars, which can be used to measure time. Time actually began "in the beginning" (Genesis 1:1), or else it would not have been "the beginning," which is a time reference. In fact, "day" is a time reference, and there are three of those prior to day four"...

https://answersingenesis.org/days-of...id-time-begin/

If you are correct, a whole team involved in apologetics ministry and dedicated to the correct understanding of Genesis, along with their authority and collective "personal" illumination by the Spirit to derive doctrinal scriptural truth, is undermined.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Actor

"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." - William Shakespeare

Is there any scientific logical reason it cannot be so?

Are you saying that a Universe could be like an amoeba and reproduce itself by splitting forming two daughter Universes?

[boxcar]

Okay...now that I'm caught up answering everyone....let's take up the Trinity where we left off yesterday.

Yesterday we learned, among other things, that collective nouns always take a singular verb form whenever a group of people (or even animals for that matter) acts as a unit. Conversely, we also saw that there are times when collective nouns rightly take the plural form of a verb, and this occurs whenever a group does not act as a unit. And then I provided an example of this latter situation. So, given how collective nouns work, we can now understand how the plural name for God ("Elohiymn") always takes a singular verb form. The reason is because the group of persons within the Godhead (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) always acts in unison. And this is not merely my opinion, but this is what scripture teaches. Even though I have provided proof texts in the recent past, I will do so again on the heels of yesterday's little grammar review on collective nouns and verb and pronoun agreements. We'll begin in the OT.

Gen 1:26a
26 Then God (Elohiymn) said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;
NASB

Gen 11:6-8
6 [i]And the Lord (YHWH) said, "Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." 8 So the Lord (YHWH) scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city.
NASB

Then we have this messianic prophecy which was fulfilled by Christ:

Isa 6:8
Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!"
NASB

The Son of God willing to become the Sent One of the Father and Holy Spirit, which of course was fulfilled at Christ's first advent.

In each case, the group (of three) acted or agreed in unison.

In the NT, we have these teachings by Jesus:

John 5:36
36 "But the witness which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish, the very works that I do, bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me.
NASB

John 10:37-38
37 "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father. "
NASB

Christ always perfectly obeyed the Father, always doing God's will. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit (since Christ was always filled with the Holy Spirit) always acted in one accord. The Three always in perfect agreement.

Two more:

John 14:26-27
26"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
NASB

Here is the Trinity right in this passage. The Father sends the Spirit in the Son's name. And to this day, the Holy Spirit's ministry continues in this dark, forlorn world.

And again, another Trinity passage:

John 15:26-27
26 "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me, 27 and you will bear witness also, because you have been with Me from the beginning.
NASB

Again, all three persons of the Godhead always in agreement, always acting in one accord.

So, now we come full circle to the Shema in the OT:

Deut 6:4-5
4 "Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! 5 "And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.
NASB

The text is not teaching that the Lord is one person, otherwise there would be many contradictions in scripture. It's teaching that the Lord is united (standing in very sharp contrast to the polytheism of the ancient Jews since polytheistic gods were anything but united!). The Lord is "one" in the sense of constituting a unified entity of two or more components. Or "one" in the sense of being in agreement or union. And the Hebrew term "echad" (translated "one") is used in these senses in scripture, as I have proved from the bible on another occasion. Now we can fully understand why "Elohiymn" (God) is a collective noun that always takes a singular verb form.

Also, I have underlined three phrases in the above passage. The irony of ironies is that the Trinity is intimated in the very passage that most Jews claim is teaching that God is one person.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

In the battle of the literalist creationists, the folks at "Answers in Genesis" disagree with you regarding "time"...

"Actually, time did not begin on Day Four. Let's take a look at what Genesis says about that day...although the argument is increasingly common, nowhere in the text does it say that time began on the fourth day. Instead, God made the sun, moon, and stars, which can be used to measure time. Time actually began "in the beginning" (Genesis 1:1), or else it would not have been "the beginning," which is a time reference. In fact, "day" is a time reference, and there are three of those prior to day four"...

https://answersingenesis.org/days-of...id-time-begin/

If you are correct, a whole team involved in apologetics ministry and dedicated to the correct understanding of Genesis, along with their authority and collective "personal" illumination by the Spirit to derive doctrinal scriptural truth, is undermined.

That's nice. The good folks over there need a lesson or two in exegesis. I explained that the Hebrew term rendered "in the beginning" has multiple meanings and I provided proof texts.

In addition I have given other arguments from scripture to show that that that kind of interpretation is not tenable, and why it's not.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Okay...now that I'm caught up answering everyone....let's take up the Trinity where we left off yesterday.

Yesterday we learned, among other things, that collective nouns always take a singular verb form whenever a group of people (or even animals for that matter) acts as a unit. Conversely, we also saw that there are times when collective nouns rightly take the plural form of a verb, and this occurs whenever a group does not act as a unit. And then I provided an example of this latter situation. So, given how collective nouns work, we can now understand how the plural name for God ("Elohiymn") always takes a singular verb form. The reason is because the group of persons within the Godhead (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) always acts in unison. And this is not merely my opinion, but this is what scripture teaches. Even though I have provided proof texts in the recent past, I will do so again on the heels of yesterday's little grammar review on collective nouns and verb and pronoun agreements. We'll begin in the OT.

Gen 1:26a
26 Then God (Elohiymn) said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;
NASB

Gen 11:6-8
6 [i]And the Lord (YHWH) said, "Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." 8 So the Lord (YHWH) scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city.
NASB

Then we have this messianic prophecy which was fulfilled by Christ:

Isa 6:8
Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!"
NASB

The Son of God willing to become the Sent One of the Father and Holy Spirit, which of course was fulfilled at Christ's first advent.

In each case, the group (of three) acted or agreed in unison.

In the NT, we have these teachings by Jesus:

John 5:36
36 "But the witness which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish, the very works that I do, bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me.
NASB

John 10:37-38
37 "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father. "
NASB

Christ always perfectly obeyed the Father, always doing God's will. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit (since Christ was always filled with the Holy Spirit) always acted in one accord. The Three always in perfect agreement.

Two more:

John 14:26-27
26"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
NASB

Here is the Trinity right in this passage. The Father sends the Spirit in the Son's name. And to this day, the Holy Spirit's ministry continues in this dark, forlorn world.

And again, another Trinity passage:

John 15:26-27
26 "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me, 27 and you will bear witness also, because you have been with Me from the beginning.
NASB

Again, all three persons of the Godhead always in agreement, always acting in one accord.

So, now we come full circle to the Shema in the OT:

Deut 6:4-5
4 "Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! 5 "And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.
NASB

The text is not teaching that the Lord is one person, otherwise there would be many contradictions in scripture. It's teaching that the Lord is united (standing in very sharp contrast to the polytheism of the ancient Jews since polytheistic gods were anything but united!). The Lord is "one" in the sense of constituting a unified entity of two or more components. Or "one" in the sense of being in agreement or union. And the Hebrew term "echad" (translated "one") is used in these senses in scripture, as I have proved from the bible on another occasion. Now we can fully understand why "Elohiymn" (God) is a collective noun that always takes a singular verb form.

Also, I have underlined three phrases in the above passage. The irony of ironies is that the Trinity is intimated in the very passage that most Jews claim is teaching that God is one person.

My my. You sure are devoting a lot of time to this defense of the so-called "done-deal obvious."

Must have touched a nerve when I presented sound arguments against your preposterous theory from both Christian Evangelicals and Jews...tough when there are those on BOTH sides of the equation who disagree with you.

YouTube

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Not necessarily so. If one mass. body or particle is matter and the other is antimatter then gravity may well be repulsive. That's very hard to test given that gravity is the weakest force and all antimatter observed so far has been subatomic particles which exist only for a short time before they are annihilated.

Other science sites would disagree with you. But let us know if you're able to test out your hypothesis with just one mass.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." - William Shakespeare

Is there any scientific logical reason it cannot be so?

I thought logic was your philosophy? What do you have against the laws of logic? Oh wait...I know...never mind.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Are you saying that a Universe could be like an amoeba and reproduce itself by splitting forming two daughter Universes?

Yeah, and one "daughter" was was called Time and the other Chance.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." - William Shakespeare

Is there any scientific logical reason it cannot be so?

Your presuppositions are showing. What relevance does the Shakespeare quote have? Did you think I was directing you to a series of scripture quotes?

There is an apt quote to our brief exchange, however. It comes from a critique of Carl Sagan's The Demon-haunted World, by evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Lewontin:

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door"...

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997...ons-of-demons/

I will send David Odenburg ("Instantaneous Change Without Instants")...

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7SK...RGakhNZHc/edit

...up to bat regarding your latest question..."In physics it is a fundamental truth that energy can neither be created nor destroyed (the first law of thermodynamics). This simply reflects the metaphysical truth that since all changes in nature require natural causes, and since those causes are finite, and since finite causes cannot create something out of nothing or turn something into nothing, a natural substantial change is not a series of creations and annihilations. Positively speaking, a substantial change is an actualization of the potentiality which some substance has with respect to some new substance: walls can be turned into rubble but not into fish."

I can't locate the quote currently, but to paraphrase Hawking, "given the laws of physics", the universe could have been self-generated. Umm...Stephen, where did the laws of physics come from? The presuppositions of such individuals prevent them from understanding what the theist means by "ex nihilo". It is not "0", it is not an empty box, etc. It is nothing.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

My my. You sure are devoting a lot of time to this defense of the so-called "done-deal obvious."

Must have touched a nerve when I presented sound arguments against your preposterous theory from both Christian Evangelicals and Jews...tough when there are those on BOTH sides of the equation who disagree with you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpJO8pjm_Kg

Sound!? You wouldn't recognize a sound argument if one stuck it's finger in your eye. The last site you linked us to compared apples with oranges, not realizing that verbs and nouns work differently.

But that's okay...keep drinking the antichrist Kool Aid. You might as well make the most of the short time you have left by living it out with gusto in your fantasy world.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

In the battle of the literalist creationists, the folks at "Answers in Genesis" disagree with you regarding "time"...

"Actually, time did not begin on Day Four. Let's take a look at what Genesis says about that day...although the argument is increasingly common, nowhere in the text does it say that time began on the fourth day. Instead, God made the sun, moon, and stars, which can be used to measure time. Time actually began "in the beginning" (Genesis 1:1), or else it would not have been "the beginning," which is a time reference. In fact, "day" is a time reference, and there are three of those prior to day four"...

https://answersingenesis.org/days-of...id-time-begin/

If you are correct, a whole team involved in apologetics ministry and dedicated to the correct understanding of Genesis, along with their authority and collective "personal" illumination by the Spirit to derive doctrinal scriptural truth, is undermined.

By the way, since you cast aspersions upon "literalist creationists", do you by chance literally believe all that purports to be science? For example, do you believe that Time is a product of physical, celestial bodies in continuous, successive motion? That this is how Time literally works in this universe? You know...like...this how the sun "rises" and it also "sets" -- that kind of stuff? That this is how calendars are made, etc.? Apparently, you don't, despite the fact that my definition of time is a scientific fact based upon the physical realities of this universe. Now...I for one do believe this to be a literal scientific fact, and so did Moses when he penned Gen 1:14-19.

How quick you are to abandon your beloved sciences when some scientific fact flies in the face of one of your long held theological/spiritual presuppositions.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Sound!? You wouldn't recognize a sound argument if one stuck it's finger in your eye. The last site you linked us to compared apples with oranges, not realizing that verbs and nouns work differently.

But that's okay...keep drinking the antichrist Kool Aid. You might as well make the most of the short time you have left by living it out with gusto in your fantasy world.

Getting desperate, aren't we? The verbs and nouns argument...hmmm....surprised you even went there, since you abhor talking about things you've already "slam-dunked," and we danced this dance with one of my many "Jewish rabbis," remember him? I guess he was doing apples and oranges too.

Me thinks I have you punch drunk at this time. You don't even know which end is up at this point.

I've punch enough holes in your theory to leave you spinning like a top. Hopefully there is someone around to catch you when you fall.