Jump to content

alphaparticle

Diamond Member
  • Posts

    1,363
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by alphaparticle

  1. I'll add this too for whoever is interested/concerned from Science: "So should we worry? No, Moss says. The fact that the universe has been around 13.8 billion years shows that primordial black holes will not trigger such a collapse, he says. As for black holes at the LHC, even if they can be created they also won't create havoc, he says. The proof of that comes from cosmic rays, which crash into the atmosphere and create even higher energy particle collisions than the LHC can. So even if such collisions spawn black holes, the black holes don't trigger vacuum collapse, Moss says, or the cosmos would have vanished long ago." http://news.sciencemag.org/europe/2015/08/tiny-black-holes-could-trigger-collapse-universe-except-they-dont
  2. My problems with this don't come out of a physics book as much as it does the Book of the Dead... But when people like Stephen Hawkins senses a possible problem with it, it raises all kinds of other flags too for me. You can't settle my concerns with a physics book. Check this out: http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/september-2014/what-hawking-really-meant
  3. Thank you Alpha This comes from Christian point of view, as a Christian physisist ,can you see anything like this coming out of the experiment? http://informedchristians.com/index.php/Articles/time-cern-and-the-bible No. A lot of this stuff strikes me as kind of weird to be honest. Why associate this with satan as the author of this page does? This is a research facility for studying fundamental physics. It's a complex of labs for hosting experiments, that is all. I don't understand the preoccupation with CERN in particular, why not pick on Fermilab which has done so many similar things? Truly, if something dire was going to happen because of LHC activity, it would have happened already for reasons I mentioned earlier. Besides engaging in these very high energy experiments, there are other experiments being done there also of a more mundane nature. Here is an example http://phys.org/news/2015-07-miniature-cancer.html
  4. angels, I wouldn't pay attention to all that. Here's a recent update on things. http://phys.org/news/2015-07-supersymmetry-physics-theory.html Note, nothing catastrophic has happened. other one, Cool about your physics background. You probably recall discussing collisions, inelastic and elastic. All that the LHC aims to do is to provide a specific location for inelastic collisions of a particular energy and particular particle type to occur. That's it. Then through the mass-energy relation particles not yet observed due to their mass may be observed. There is no physically relevant different between protons colliding there and protons colliding in the atmosphere. It's just convenient for them to occur there due to the array of particle detectors.
  5. This is wildly inaccurate. 1905 Einstein develops special relativity, and later, general relativity. Quantum mechanics was formulated in the 1920s and profoundly impacted our view of the world. Followed by the original development of quantum mechanics was quantum electrodynamics in the following decades, the marriage of electromagnetism and quantum mechanics, and the most successful physical theory yet in the precision and accuracy of its predictions. Meanwhile, the standard model was put together, which as proven to be incredibly (and annoyingly) robust. Many things have come together to allow for the technological advances that allow us to sit here and communicate as we are. You could see the hand of God in that. I tend to. What I question most though, about this thread in general, is why this matters. Many brilliant scientists believed in God, and many were even believers. Many brilliant scientists didn't believe in God, many have been atheists. What conclusion then to draw from this? I suppose I'd settle on the fact that there is a spiritual side to faith that as far as I can tell has no correlation to IQ at all.
  6. The dimensions that some physicists speculate about really have nothing to do with spiritual realities. They are about introducing another orthogonal degree of freedom in space. Up, down, sideways, and, another sideways (or many more depending what theory it is). It's all physical speculation though.
  7. Nothing has ever been run at this energy levels. Did you see my comments about the cosmic rays? this isn't a concern. I have heard people who work there that are concerned... The basic fact is, higher energy collisions (than anything approachable at the LHC) have happened, and have been happening, all of the time in the upper atmosphere. If the earth was going to be swallowed up by a blackhole due to them, it would have happened already. it's not really the black holes. It's opening something into other dimensions that we really don't understand enough to know if it's a problem. Black holes are not the problem..... but if you are just looking at the physics of it I would agree. But we know so little of the worlds that contain the spiritual realm. I would just add that the Book of Genesis tells us that it is possible to do whatever we set out minds to do and getting to God himself is what Nimrod was in the process of doing. What I said would apply to probing any other possible spatial dimensions either, which by the way, have nothing to do with spiritual realities. If colliding protons at very high energies could do anything dangerous, the earth would have seen it long ago due to cosmic ray collisions.
  8. Nothing has ever been run at this energy levels. Did you see my comments about the cosmic rays? this isn't a concern. I have heard people who work there that are concerned... The basic fact is, higher energy collisions (than anything approachable at the LHC) have happened, and have been happening, all of the time in the upper atmosphere. If the earth was going to be swallowed up by a blackhole due to them, it would have happened already.
  9. I largely agree with Shiloh on this one. People overestimate their abilities, and underestimate their weaknesses all of the time. Men and women were made to have sexual attractions to each other, and no matter what your intentions are, if you are spending a lot of one on one time with someone of the opposite sex in a friendly manner, that may trigger instincts before you know they are there. Being friendly, or being friends in couple situations is one thing, having a close friendship with someone of the opposite sex in my age range is not something I'd do. I doubt any female I work with would think I'm a weirdo or cold, but I wouldn't go out to ice cream with them alone. My female friend, and best friend, is my wife. A couple verses pop to mind... jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? mat 26:41 Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” 1 cor 7:2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
  10. Nothing has ever been run at this energy levels. Did you see my comments about the cosmic rays? this isn't a concern.
  11. Nothing evil is going to sprout forth. I'll tell you why I know that as a fact. Cosmic rays are particles from different places in outer space that hit earth's atmosphere. Some are heavy and go incredibly fast. The energy of some of these particles is a lot bigger than anything the LHC at CERN could produce. If something bad were to come from collisions that the LHC will produce, we would have already seen that from naturally occurring cosmic rays.
  12. International collaboration is very common on large projects like this at CERN. That in itself is not unique and I cannot think of a good theological reason to worry about that. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is best known for being used to discover the Higgs boson at this point. Protons and anti-protons are collided at extremely high speeds, making for a large kinetic energy in the subsequent collision. Because of Einstein's mass-energy equivalence (the famous E=mc^2 equation) new heavy particles can be created, and subsequently detected with the particle detectors there. The Higgs boson, sometimes called the "God particle" by the media for reasons that completely allude me (and this is the media hyping stuff up! no scientist calls it the God particle), was predicted by an important theoretical framework called the Standard Model. So far, the Standard Model has been a smashing success, and discovering the Higgs, with the mass range it had, was yet another important success for it. This particle is responsible for giving other particles their intrinsic mass when they interact with the associated Higgs field. But, back to the LHC's future, it was understood that it would be operated at half energy to start (7 TeV) and then later retrofitted and ramped up to twice that. It's the latter that is happening now. More energy means more particles can be discovered. What people hope to find, or rule out, are supersymmetrical partners. If these are found, it would double the known fundamental particles in the universe. There's a very basic outline of things last I knew how it stood. All that being said, I want to emphasize that this is no fundamentally different from any physics experiment happening in the most humble lab. As a physics experiment, the goal is to understand how nature works in a more thorough manner, inspired by curiosity. There is nothing that any believer should feel intimidated about in my estimation. Personally, I'm very excited to see the results of the next runs and what they reveal about the awesome world God created.
  13. I posted my response to see that Once Again I am in agreement with MOrningglory.... should I be concerned? Should we all be concerned?
  14. Absolutely. The issue that was raised in this thread is why has feminine modesty become an issue? And the answer is because it is an issue. I was at a place of business recently where the attendant at the counter was a young woman (and chunky to boot). Not only was her cleavage exposed partially but she had some kind of unreadable message tatooed across the top. She probably did not give it a thought, and assumed that this was "business casual". This type of female exposure is becoming the norm. So Christian women need to be asking themselves whether they are allowing these norms to influence them, or are they resisting them. If they are not resisting them, then men (in general) should not be blamed for their inappropriate responses. Mat 5:28,9 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. You are responsible for your own reactions. This last sentence of yours is deeply disturbing.
  15. There may not be violations, but it *doesn't always apply*. That is my point and why the quote has nothing to do with anything I've said. That was the entire point of my previous post. It's a little hard to respond when I'd just be repeating what I said before, as you haven't dealt with any of the meat in my post. I'm honestly befuddled. I put some thought into the varieties of ways I could restate what this law of thermodynamics is about. I provided you with links as I know you like that, but I don't get the sense you looked at those either. If you do not see how the law is derived in the first place, it is rather difficult to talk to you about appropriate applications. There is a reason that in our training we are asked to derive for ourselves the laws and such that we actually use. At any rate, I really am not sure what else to add here, except that, if you want to address my previous post, great. If you think you have, then it's fairly obvious I'm wasting my time insofar as I'd be repeating myself again.
  16. The focus, I believe, is inappropriate given that there doesn't seem to be first a focus first on how believing men treat women. Men don't indulge in such exposure because women don't respond to it in the same sort of way that men respond to scantily clad women. Were believing men doing what they were supposed to, simply by treating women in the ways outlined in scripture in the OP, this issue would diminish.
  17. Enoch, It *is* by definition a statistical law. Your quote isn't saying that it isn't, but it is clarifying that that doesn't mean what some people think it does. For my purposes that means it lacks meaning when talking about simple interactions in two-body systems. It is ill defined. It's like asking what the density of a hydrogen atom is- not very useful. You can think of this like watching a video of an egg breaking and being cooked; you'd know immediately if the tape were played backward. On the other hand, if you have two billiard balls (in ideal conditions), and you only saw the balls collide, you couldn't tell if the video was played backward or not. The quote you put up there has nothing to do with what I am saying now. Look at the part following what you bolded "in the sense that microscopic violations repeatedly occur, but never violations of any serious magnitude." In other words, the thought that the second law prohibits all the air in your room from suddenly coalescing to one corner (this is vanishingly unlikely, it is a *statistical* theory) but not that there would be a more local violation in a much smaller part of your room, the centimeter cubed portion by your ear say, is to misunderstand. It's still extremely unlikely that in the centimeter cubed patch by your ear the molecules will suddenly arrange to be in one half of the cube. This could be rephrased in these terms, entropy goes like the natural log of the number of ways you can arrange the pieces to get the same macrostate. It may also be possible that he has in mind something a bit more subtle than this, maybe likely, but I can't tell based on a quote out of context. That is part of the reason why I dislike discussions that consist of smatterings of quotes rather than carefully dealing with a concept from the ground up. But, it may be he wants to talk about any interactions in which on one side of the interaction there are multiple states which are available and on the other side there is a very specific outcome, then you could very meaningfully talk about knowing if the tape ran backward or not, even if only two entities are involved. I can provide examples if you'd like. It would cause maybe an important refinement of the concept, but I think the links below will address both ways we have been discussing this. But, if I ask if it is a violation that a single molecule happens to bump against one particular neighbor vs another? Suppose I take a single molecule H2 molecule and put it in a bottle. That it happens to be in one half of the bottle vs another wouldn't surprise you or me. Applying the second law to that question is as useless as me asking you what the density of H2 is in that bottle, or what its temperature is. On the other hand, fundamental laws (electrodynamics for example) always apply, always has meaning. All that is a very long winded way to say, I am not asking for violations large or small (re your quote). I am asserting that the second law doesn't apply to every question. Here are some links that describe what I am saying more clearly. Looking at entropy and the concept of disorder: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/therm/entrop.html#e3 Entropy and the number of ways to arrange a system: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/therm/entrop2.html#c1 "and from the above link a way to understand the second law: For a system of a large number of particles, like a mole of atoms, the most probable state will be overwhelmingly probable. You can with confidence expect that the system at equilibrium will be found in the state of highest multiplicity since fluctuations from that state will usually be too small to measure. As a large system approaches equilibrium, its multiplicity (entropy) tends to increase." How many ways can you arrange the molecules in my cup of coffee so that it has the same temperature? The same density? It will tend toward the state such that, given its interaction with the larger system, the number of ways is maximal.
  18. Alright, it's true, I'm in a mood. But, it does seem to me we have had a lot of threads about how women ought to dress and behave in various contexts, and not so much about what men ought to be doing specifically. Why is this? It seems to me the primary responsibility for behaving honorably is on each of us, rather than blaming others for how they are dressing and such, and that is the place to start such discussions. Mat 5:28,9 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. How are believing men supposed to treat women? 1Ti 5:1,2 Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, in all purity. My point isn't that women (and men) shouldn't think about others when dressing or presenting themselves. My point is that unless men are caring to treat women properly, and that includes how they are treated in thoughts, it won't matter how they dress. Guaranteed most men could be tempted by a woman perfectly modestly dressed, minding her own business, if he allows himself to be. And, even if a woman is being flirtatious and seductive, it is still on the man in question to avoid temptation and avoid sin, first and foremost. The woman has to answer for own sins, and the man for his. It is no good to pass around the blame, either way. I am concerned that an overemphasis on concerns about dress and propriety by women, without a proper balancing look at what counts as propriety by men, will not encourage men to view believing women as they really are first and foremost. Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. All believers first and foremost belong to God through Christ, we are coheirs to the promise of salvation, and it seems to me we ought to seek to treat each other as such. After 1 Peter talks about how women ought to dress modestly, it says this: 1Pe 3:7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. Before men go on to opine about how long the hem of a woman's skirt is, perhaps we ought to consider the commandments laid on us first.
  19. ============================================================================================================== Say What? “Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.” {Emphasis Mine} Isaac Asimov PhD Biochemistry "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Break Even," Smithsonian Institute Journal, June, 1970, p. 6. More Disorderly = More Chaotic...and it's happening "Constantly". This is a 2nd Law of Thermodynamics Violation and speaks to your misunderstanding of it. “The universe is thus progressing toward an ultimate ‘heat death’ or, as it is technically defined, a condition of ‘maximum entropy’ . . And there is no way of avoiding this destiny. For the fateful principle known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which stands today as the principal pillar of classical physics left intact by the march of science, proclaims that the fundamental processes of nature are irreversible. Nature moves only one way.” Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein (1957), pp. 102-103. Paul Davies PhD Astrophysics; Kings College, London: "The greatest puzzle is where all the order in the universe came from originally. How did the cosmos get wound up, if the Second Law of Thermodynamics predicts asymmetric unwinding toward disorder?" "Universe In Reverse," Second Look, 1, 1979, p.27 1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant. 2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, and the Universe is moving inexorably to "Maximum Entropy" or Heat Death. If the total amount of mass-energy is constant, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy—the ‘heat death’ of the universe. “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” “It can’t possibly be eternal in the past. There must be some kind of boundary.” Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin, Tufts University Boston. Grossman, L., Death of the eternal cosmos, New Scientist 213(2847):6–7, 14 January 2012. “several different models of the universe that dodge the need for a beginning while still requiring a big bang. But recent research has shot them full of holes (see page 6). It now seems certain that the universe did have a beginning.” Editorial: In the beginning … , New Scientist 213(2847):3, 14 January 2012 Because to say no GOD, they MUST believe (short list): 1. Stupid Atoms can write their own CODE/Software and then constructed thousands of Hyper Nano-Tech Molecular Machines and Robots in each Cell. 2. Life comes from Non-Life "Naturally". 3. The Universe created itself from Nothing; Ergo, existed prior to it's existence. 4. Bacteria can turn into Giraffes (If given enough TIME). 5. Planets and Stars coalescing from Gas and Debris. AND, their justifying platform for these Absurdities....."Science" ; all the while Directly Violating: 1. Laws of Thermodynamics "Pillars of Science". 2. Jeans Mass 3. Boyle's Gas Law 4. The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum 5. Law of Biogenesis 6. Laws of Information 7. Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry 8. Functional Sequence Complexity 9. Irreducible Complexity 10. Quantum Mechanics 11. Laws of Logic 12. Law of Cause and Effect 13. Common Sense Look Up. That would require a purposed fundamental ignorance and unfamiliarity of just Basic Laws and Principles of "Science'. Then that's "Blind" Faith, and is admonished against in Scripture, simply... (1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." Now of course nobody can directly prove/validate a past event...simply because there is No Way to TEST IT (See Formal Hypothesis in previous post); However, there are indirect methods to get pretty close. Well, this is a Multi-Step approach...allow me to demonstrate: You only have 2 choices as to "How" we are here: Nature (Unguided) or Intelligent Design (GOD -Guided). The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Information; and the tenets of Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...Laughingly so. If you summarily rule one of the choices out.... where does it leave you? Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction--- two things that are contradictory can't be responsible @ the same time (or do you disagree?). This is not a False Dichotomy (Bifurcation Fallacy) because there is no THIRD CHOICE. Now if I summarily refute Nature (Unguided) the choice MUST BE ID. YOU MAY THEN conjure thousands of possibilities under ID; however, it has ZERO to do with the tenets of first postulate. George Wald Nobel Laureate Medicine and Physiology... “The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. THERE IS NO THIRD POSITION. …Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.” {Emphasis Mine} Wald, G., “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191 [2]: 45-46, 1954. http://www.academia.edu/2739607/Scientific_GOD_Journal Then.... He is the CREATOR. The "CREATOR" can't be "created" or else, HE couldn't be the "CREATOR", by simple definition. Furthermore Logically....for finite things to exist (Universe, Us), there MUST be an Infinite/Eternal ("Always Was") Source; it's a Contingent Necessary FACT. SEE: Aristotle (Prime/Unmoved Mover, First Cause). To deny this, you are forced into a logical checkmate then reduced to introducing an Infinite Regress...it's Fallacious. Nothing can CREATE itself...... because that would mean: It Existed Prior To It's Existence. Logical Seppuku Also, there can be Only One "CREATOR"...considering more than one, even for a Planck Time, is Logical Seppuku. Then.... To search for the ONE TRUE CREATOR, you evaluate all the "contenders" throughout History that say or imply "They Are the One" and measure them with Reliable Historical Documentation along with the Immutable Laws of Science... it really doesn't take long. This is condensed; however, if you need me to get really specific, just ask. You're using Biblical "Faith" in the "Blind" Sense motif here. Sort of an Equivocation (Fallacy); It's not, according to Scripture... "Biblical" Faith - (Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." It has Substance and Evidence. "Blind" Faith --- Belief without substance or evidence. (Life from Non-Life, Something from Nothing, et al) As mentioned above, "Blind Faith" is specifically admonished against in Scripture: (1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." hope it helps I suppose maybe it is easier to bullet point this. 1. Thermodynamics are a set of statistical laws, they are not fundamental. This matters because: a. when talking about a *single* interaction between fundamental entities it is not at all relevant. The interaction between two isolated electrons is not subject to the second law of thermodynamics. b. the second law only applies to systems that are closed 2. Chaos and disorder are not the same, and neither means lack of fundamental order on the level of fundamental interactions. 3. Chaos doesn't mean lack of any fundamental laws whatsoever; chaotic systems are ones in which a small change in initial conditions lead to a significant change in state later on. They are chaotic because it is very hard to predict how the system will evolve (such as weather). 4. Disorder doesn't mean lack of *fundamental* order. Disorder in thermodynamics means a system which has evolved to the state in which its pieces could be arranged in the most amount of ways and still be the same. Here is an example of what I mean if that is unclear. Take a bag full of red and black balls that you have thoroughly shook together, and suppose you are going to dump them on the floor. How would you expect them to be arranged? Most likely they will be fairly mixed up. You wouldn't expect right balls all separated from the black, all the red on the right, all the black on the left for instance. That is highly unlikely. The mixed up red and black ball state is the more disorderly one, and the one most likely to actually occur. This is all that the second law of thermodynamics states. I think too many presentations are semi-mystical in their talk about 'disorder', but really all it is saying is that statistically, you are much more likely to get red and black balls all mixed together than separated out when you dump the bag on the floor. Please note, the red and black balls at no point fail to operate according to the *fundamental* laws of physics. and 5. the observable universe certainly has a finite beginning. That does not imply that it could not have arisen out of a yet larger system. That matters because if I could assert, as a possible speculative possibility that if the universe popped into existence due to a quantum fluctuation, concerns about the second law of thermodynamics are not relevant (due to my bulletpoint 1). So that is related to the issues surrounding attempting to use statistical rules to show that the universe requires a Creator. I don't think it works. As to your theological concerns, I do not think 1 thess is talking about providing philosophical proofs of things. I believe in the context it means prove all things against scripture. Similarly with Hebrews, which talks about all of the reasons we ought to trust in God based on scripturally reported happenings. My faith is not blind, it is provided by God. I am constantly interacting with the Spirit and over time have accumulated a lot of personal evidence. I acknowledge, though, that that will be unlikely to convince someone else.
  20. The second law of thermodynamics doesn't suggest things are chaotic, certainly not in the sense you seem to imply. The second law merely claims that if you have a large ensemble of things the configuration will tend toward the state for which there are the largest number of ways to arrange the pieces. The physical rules of the interactions between individual pieces is presupposed. Atheists do not need a 'first cause' to have a coherent worldview. There is no reason mass/energy couldn't have simply existed and have always existed. They can simply assert that the existence of a certain amount of stuff is a brute fact about the world. And really, why not? They would, justifiably I believe, question that our belief in God is any better in terms of evidential justification. Ultimately there are claims that are not supportable in the classical epistemological sort of way. I make claims I cannot fully justify, so what? I believe God desires to teach me humility by putting me in this situation. The stuff that most affects the world, the existence of God, the death and resurrection of Jesus, are not fully justifiable beliefs in the foundationalist tradition. I don't care. Faith is a gift from God. I believe because He desires me to believe and grants me the faith necessary. If an atheist wants me to share reasons that make it a bit more likely, I can do that, but I have full awareness there is no bulletproof case for it- aside from the inner testimony that the Spirit gives to believers.
  21. I don't think I agree with this line of reasoning. Why couldn't the atheist simply assert things are not chaotic but lacks further explanation than that? To make the scientific method work, the atheist asserts uniformity in nature and causality. Those could be asserted as a matter of brute facts. After all, as a believer I run into a similar epistemological 'wall'. I cannot explain or justify to anyone fully my belief in the gospel, but the faith is there, as a gift from God.
  22. My favorite version of camping includes a hotel.
  23. What do you mean - he cheated on her? If he slept with somebody else, he committed adultery. Even if he and his wife divorced first, he committed adultery with another woman UNLESS he married the second woman. you never mentioned whether he married the second woman or not. You're asking if he falls under the exception. What exception? Are you suggesting that it is okay to sleep with somebody as long as you're not married to somebody else? Even if his first marriage became effectively null and void, it doesn't give him license to sleep around. Nobody appears to have asked whether he married the second woman or not. They seem to be concentrating on whether he divorced his first wife first. What do you mean - he cheated on her? If he slept with somebody else, he committed adultery. Even if he and his wife divorced first, he committed adultery with another woman UNLESS he married the second woman. you never mentioned whether he married the second woman or not. You're asking if he falls under the exception. What exception? Are you suggesting that it is okay to sleep with somebody as long as you're not married to somebody else? Even if his first marriage became effectively null and void, it doesn't give him license to sleep around. Nobody appears to have asked whether he married the second woman or not. They seem to be concentrating on whether he divorced his first wife first. No. I'll explain. She had sex with someone else. Then he did the same. She divorced him carrying the child of other dude. He committed adultery - regardless. Even if he had divorced her first before having sex with the other woman, he still committed adultery because he had sex with somebody he wasn't married to. Forget his wife who cheated on him (for the moment). Even if his wife had never existed, he still had sex with somebody that he wasn't married to. That is also adultery. Adultery is not just about breaking marriage vows or cheating on a spouse - adultery is also having sex with somebody to whom you are not married. He also caused the second woman to commit adultery too regardless of whether she was or had been married. If neither party is married it isn't adultery. It's fornication. Adultery involves a spouse straying.
  24. Coincidence. How many times does some state say something about Israel and nothing noteworthy happens? Then again, how common are quakes of that size? I doubt very much you'd have a statistically significant correlation. When I read of prophetic happenings in the Bible, they do not seem the type of thing that we'd have to wonder, I wonder if this is an act of God or ordinary stuff happening to correlate temporally.
×
×
  • Create New...