Interesting Find

[prospector]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

That statement seems to indicate God has limitations.
If true, there is one thing that God cannot do. Hmmm??

square circle

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by prospector

square circle

.

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

.

That really messes with your eyes doesn't it? They are concentric circles though aren't they?

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

That really messes with your eyes doesn't it? They are concentric circles though aren't they?

Yup.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

That statement seems to indicate God has limitations.
If true, there is one thing that God cannot do. Hmmm??

Of course, God has "limitations". I have explained this on previous occasions. God cannot act contrary to his nature -- to what he is, which righteous and holy. God can only think, speak and act in accordance with his sinless, perfect nature. Therefore, God cannot sin. Neither did the only begotten Son of God ever sin, which is logical since Jesus is the very God of God and was sent to earth as the perfect sacrifice to atone for the sins of his Father's people.

Heb 4:15
15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.
NASB

Further, if God were a sinner like us, why the necessity for the Cross? Why would he send his only Son to die for sinners in their place? Wouldn't God just say, "Look, folks, do the best you can because I'm just as vulnerable to sin as you, so I can empathize with you"?

Moreover, who would want to trust in God if he were capable of sinning? How trustworthy would he be, especially since we're all going to be judged by him? How would anyone be able to trust in his righteous judgments in this world or the next?

The fact that God cannot sin is a very great comfort to Christians.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by TJDave

But just got a call saying tonight would be different than all other nights. Paschal lamb is on the menu. Yummy.

My page is full until tomorrow.

Enjoy. I would only wish you'd feast on the Lamb of God.

Boxcar

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yes, but how many of us daily make these mundane assumptions and claim we're making sense of how the universe and all life got here? Bad analogy.
I drive nearly every day based on the "science" of man, yet along with a gazillion of other drivers, that activity doesn't exactly excite my interest in unraveling the deep mysteries of the universe and life! Nor do I have to in order to drive! Nor did the guy for that matter who invented the internal combustible engine, etc.

One more time. V-e-r-y S-l-o-w-l-y for the reading impaired. I never said science alone is the way to understand all the mysteries of life and universe. We are only dealing with your bogus manufactured idiocy re: The age of the universe and 1/2 baked contention that it appears older than it really is.

At least you drive...

The internal combustion engine, the technology that you use without having a clue, is direct evidence for the scientific case for the old universe.

a)-The petroleum burnt is known to have originated based on the science of chemistry, physics and geology eons ago.

b)-The laws of thermodynamics explain why burning that petrol moves your car. And why you can stop by applying friction brakes

c-If you use GPS, the accurate speed of light must be known and applied.

All may be "mundane" theologically, but all are based on sophisticated repeatable testable empirical scientifically established theory and knowledge that prove the earth and universe are far older tan 6,000 yeas.

You cannot refute the actual evidence. You only have the last resort of a philosophical scoundrel. The sophistry of "appearance of age." Provide one damn piece of EVIDENCE other than your misinterpretation and rationalization of the bible. One piece of evidence that at least points to your self defined paradoxical appearance of age proposition having some reality external to cherry picked biblical passages. It is up to you to provide something to support your hair brained theory. Anything. But we all you you can't.

I will remind you of the history of the many prior debates I have had with you. Previously after confronting you with irrefutable facts contrary to a young earth, and after you vainly tried to disprove radiocarbon dating and other scientific evidence as well (you tried to convince all of us the the literal time line of Genesis was correct), it was only then after boxed in and no where to go, you presented the appearance of age babble. Your history shows you have retreated into a losing philosophical position and have nowhere else to go. But to maintain your trumpeted internal consistency theorem you wind up reducing God into a cruel mocking headmaster handing out unjust final exams in the Boxcarian school of fore and brimstone.

A despicable graven image of your own narrow mind.

I said "I will remind you of the Hindu story about the elephant." Your stupid reply

Oh, no, not again!

Yeah...well, preach that to the scientists who leave out God from their scientific equations.

Write us ONE that includes God. But I doubt you have any understanding of math. Generally goes well with illiteracy in science, I doubt you even know what an equation is.

I have defended my position. I will not engage in foolish speculations with you. I gave you four reasonable justifications behind my "apparent age" theory.

In your dreams. Reasonable justifications have some sort of correlation with factual evidence. You have nothing

The Genesis account can only leave us with this reasonable conclusion. The universe and all life was created in a mature, fully developed state. God had the right, as the Potter, to create and mold the clay as he wants.

God revealed to mankind that he created ex nihilo, therefore, no one can accuse him of deception. (Men choose to ignore the bible and the supernatural at their own peril!) The only way God could be accused of deception is if he didn't reveal this and yet judged men on the basis of what Paul wrote in Rom 1:18ff. God, then, would have lied by omission.

Scripture records that God tests Man; therefore, how he created could very well be a moral test to see if man's heart is drawn more to the creation or to the Creator.

Go your way, 'cap, to build your altar to the creation.

How do you know you are not the one being tested by buying into a fundamentalist crock? It would seem to me God wouldn't waste his time instilling intellect in man and then pulling the rug out from under his feet. God has better things to do than play silly games that originate in limited minds.

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by hcap

I never said science alone is the way to understand all the mysteries of life and universe.

I'm fully confident that science will eventually solve all the physical mysteries of universe.

The spiritual is a matter of faith, not fact...not scientific discipline.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by TJDave

I'm fully confident that science will eventually solve all the physical mysteries of universe.

The spiritual is a matter of faith, not fact...not scientific discipline.

I agree the spiritual is a matter of faith.
I don't believe that science will eventually solve all the physical mysteries of the universe. Science is wonderful for sure, but it has barely scraped 1 zillionth of the mysteries to be solved. What we don't know about the universe is tremendously enormous. Beyond our current comprehension for sure.

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

I agree the spiritual is a matter of faith.
I don't believe that science will eventually solve all the physical mysteries of the universe. Science is wonderful for sure, but it has barely scraped 1 zillionth of the mysteries to be solved. What we don't know about the universe is tremendously enormous. Beyond our current comprehension for sure.

Of course it's beyond our current comprehension, but just think of the advances just in our lives that have occured in the past 10 years. I don't think all questions will be answered as answering one often leads to others. The point though is in the journey and our growth as a species, if you will. Faith and science should never be at odds despite what Boxy has posted above because one concerns the spiritual and the other the natural world. The first concerns one personally, the second concerns us all as one.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by TJDave

I'm fully confident that science will eventually solve all the physical mysteries of universe.

The spiritual is a matter of faith, not fact...not scientific discipline.

I said science alone can not solve the mysteries. I did mean mysteries in it's original sense.

I think when we am lucky enough get even the slightest understanding to the vastness of the universe, both large and small, we can experience a sense of awe that adds to the spiritual.

But the problem with words is we create artificial divisions that conceptually divide and pigeonhole the world into manageable parts. So although we have the ability to transmit culture and ideas through languge, I suspect that when we say physical vs spiritual, we do not see the continuous spectrum of being including mind body and spirit as a whole. It is our limited state of awareness that tricks us. Very poor images projected onto Plato's cave.

In linguistics there is an analogy that compares language to a map. I believe we all confuse the map for the territory. Then fight bitterly over what we perceive as our "property rights"

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I will remind you of the history of the many prior debates I have had with you. Previously after confronting you with irrefutable facts contrary to a young earth, and after you vainly tried to disprove radiocarbon dating and other scientific evidence as well (you tried to convince all of us the the literal time line of Genesis was correct),

You're lying through your teeth I never did such a thing. In fact, you kept pressing me incessantly, like an obsessed maniac about how old I thought the earth was, and I refused to debate the issue with you because you were so dishonest; plus I told you that I, personally, never studied all the genealogies to try to figure it out for myself. All I said was that I don't believe the earth is a gazillion years old -- that I thought it was a lot younger from what I do in scripture.

it was only then after boxed in and no where to go, you presented the appearance of age babble. Your history shows you have retreated into a losing philosophical position and have nowhere else to go. But to maintain your trumpeted internal consistency theorem you wind up reducing God into a cruel mocking headmaster handing out unjust final exams in the Boxcarian school of fore and brimstone.

Ahh...so let's see, God has now evolved from "my version" of him being a liar (to which I proved he cannot be) to just Him himself being a a "cruel mocking headmaster"? But even this is a self-defeating argument because you concede that God has given us intelligence "intellect" but if everyone was so smart, why haven't they taken his revelation seriously, including a very large majority of the scientific community who dismisses him entirely and some will even boast about it!? So, much for great intellects. It is is no wonder at all that Paul wrote:

1 Cor 1:26-28
26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are..
NASB

How do you know you are not the one being tested by buying into a fundamentalist crock? It would seem to me God wouldn't waste his time instilling intellect in man and then pulling the rug out from under his feet. God has better things to do than play silly games that originate in limited minds.

Now, now...you're showing your Intolerance. You don't want to stir up the wrath of your despicable god Tolerance, do you? Tsk, tsk, tsk.

And God doesn't pull the rug out from anyone. Man does an excellent job all by himself doing that.

But you're so blind and arrogant you don't even realize what it is you're asking me to do. You want me to explain the supernatural acts of creation to you with scientific explanations of how God could have created the universe several thousand years ago and reconcile that with the naturalistic assumptions and models of man that have reached very different conclusions? If I could explain the "how",then the creation acts wouldn't have been miracles, would they? In short, you expect me to be just like God in order to explain how he created!? Man just can't escape from that temptation of being like God, can he? You're natural mind is so twisted, you don't even realize what it is you're asking me to do!

Also, you fail to understand that if Man were really honest and unbiased (as you seem to think 99.99% of scientists are), we could well be looking at very different conclusions because scientists' models and assumptions would have been grounded in creationism instead of naturalism. One of the major naturalistic assumptions that comes immediately to mind is Uniformitarianism which conflicts badly with the Catastrophism of the bible, i.e. the Flood. The Flood itself was a supernatural act of God and the biblical evidence suggests that it had a profound impact on the earth and life upon it. Man's lifespan, for example, was shortened considerably after that catastrophe. I have to think lifespan's weren't the only thing affected.

But don't go blaming God for man's willful ignorance and arrogance. God provided the written record for mankind to use and from which to build upon with biblically-based models and assumptions so that mankind could gain more accurate knowledge both of the creation and the Creator. But most men choose not to, as Paul tells us in Rom 1:18ff.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by TJDave

I'm fully confident that science will eventually solve all the physical mysteries of universe.

The spiritual is a matter of faith, not fact...not scientific discipline.

Since macroevolution has never been observed or tested, methinks it requires even more faith than in believing in the God of the bible.

"Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I strong SUSPECT he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time" ("An Interview with Isaac Asimov on Science and the Bible". Free Inquiry, Vol. 2, Spring 1982 p. 9 By Paul Kurtz).

Commentary:

Logically, if Mr. Asimov doesn't have the 'evidence' to disprove the existence of God (including creation); then neither can he have the 'evidence' that proves his atheism (and the evolution that under-girds it). Which means that his atheism is a 'faith-religion', and he realizes that evolution lacks 'proof'. Before we move on, many assume that no 'real' scientist would ever believe in creation. The following scientists did: In Physics-Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin. Chemistry-Boyle, Dalton, Pascal, Ramsay. Biology-Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur. Geology-Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Agassiz. Astronomy-Kepler, Galileo, Herschel, Maunder.

http://www.ch-of-christ.beaverton.or.us/Evolve.htm

"Biogenesis" is the theory that life originated from nonlife one day when some sand and seawater changed itself into a living being. It is accepted by faith, for there is no evidence to support such an idea.

"It is therefore a matter of faith, on the part of the biologist, that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence of what did happen is not available."—*G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1960), p. 150.

"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."—*L. Harrison Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of Species," p. xxii (1977 edition).

"Humanism is the belief that man shapes his own destiny. It is a constructive philosophy, a nontheistic religion, a way of life."—*American Humanist Association, promotional brochure.

"It is a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds over men's minds."—*Encounter, November, p. 48 (1959).

The following is a pretty amazing quote coming from staunch champion and defender of Darwin:

" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence, and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori arguments against Theism and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation."—*Thomas H. Huxley, quoted in *L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. I (1903), p. 241 (1903).

"If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous."—*R.E.D. Clark, Victoria Institute (1943), p. 63.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclo...ia/21soc04.htm

I'll leave you with just these few. Again, Happy Passover!

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Since macroevolution has never been observed or tested, methinks it requires even more faith than in believing in the God of the bible.

"Boxcar

In sincerity boxcar , and not that it will or ever did happen, but if it did, would the arrival of extra-terrestrial beings have any influence on your thinking?
Alternately, could extra-terrestrials exist??

In fairness to you and your faith:
Feel free not to respond to those questions, for as far as we know or have been told, they remain hypothetical, if at all.

[hcap]

But you're so blind and arrogant you don't even realize what it is you're asking me to do. You want me to explain the supernatural acts of creation to you with scientific explanations of how God could have created the universe several thousand years ago and reconcile that with the naturalistic assumptions and models of man that have reached very different conclusions? If I could explain the "how",then the creation acts wouldn't have been miracles, would they?

It would require a miracle for you to explain anything without resorting to circular arguments.