enoob57 Posted October 16, 2011 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,698 Content Per Day: 8.03 Reputation: 21,758 Days Won: 77 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Online Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Cosmological argument is best seen in one simple fact there are distances of place whereby we can see but also know that we as a collective whole (all life times of humanity) could never reach[ ! ] Why this is important; "God says I AM beyond this in my heavens" ... so we are in fact left with God's testimony -> I have shown you places, that are, that you can never get to on your own abilities and I, on the outside of that, Am stretching them out like a curtain ... this is the witness of MY INFINITE GREATNESS and still you will not yield to faith in My Words and the example in MY HEAVENS... Ps 19 .... The heavens declare the glory of God;And the firmament shows His handiwork. 2 Day unto day utters speech,And night unto night reveals knowledge. 3 There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. 4 Their line has gone out through all the earth,And their words to the end of the world. In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun, 5 Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,And rejoices like a strong man to run its race. 6 Its rising is from one end of heaven,And its circuit to the other end;And there is nothing hidden from its heat. 7 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul;The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; 8 The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart;The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes; 9 The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever;The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. 10 More to be desired are they than gold,Yea, than much fine gold;Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. 11 Moreover by them Your servant is warned,And in keeping them there is great reward. 12 Who can understand his errors?Cleanse me from secret faults. 13 Keep back Your servant also from presumptuous sins;Let them not have dominion over me.Then I shall be blameless,And I shall be innocent of great transgression. 14 Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart Be acceptable in Your sight,O Lord, my strength and my Redeemer. NKJV Upon your examination of me in this Viole- you will undoubtedly find me very simple in this... However in the seventh verse you shall see why this is so= I am bound by His Greatness of infinitesimal accord to be so... Love, Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted October 16, 2011 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,698 Content Per Day: 8.03 Reputation: 21,758 Days Won: 77 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Online Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Well, I have no problem suggesting that there were rainbows before the flood, that the rules of light did not change during that cataclysmic event so God made a promise, and said... now, every time you see this rainbow, it means etc etc etc. There is an understanding of a canopy of water, pre-flood, which would have prevented rainbows... Love, Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted October 16, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.88 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted October 16, 2011 Well, I have no problem suggesting that there were rainbows before the flood, that the rules of light did not change during that cataclysmic event so God made a promise, and said... now, every time you see this rainbow, it means etc etc etc. There is an understanding of a canopy of water, pre-flood, which would have prevented rainbows... Love, Steven Yes I've heard that theory and summarily rejected it, I see no real evidence for it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted October 16, 2011 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,698 Content Per Day: 8.03 Reputation: 21,758 Days Won: 77 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Online Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Well, I have no problem suggesting that there were rainbows before the flood, that the rules of light did not change during that cataclysmic event so God made a promise, and said... now, every time you see this rainbow, it means etc etc etc. There is an understanding of a canopy of water, pre-flood, which would have prevented rainbows... Love, Steven Yes I've heard that theory and summarily rejected it, I see no real evidence for it at all. The fact that it had never rained before the flood would necessitate a canopy (hydrological cycle impeded)... also God's opening the windows of Heaven would indicate by rainfall of mass proportions to flood the entire earth. The longevity of life could also be an indicator as sun ages. Also the commonsense of the Hebrew Gen 9:13 13 I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. NKJV better to understand -I give-. Walking throughout the rest of the Word with God this is a instance He gives- we get: Covenants, Law, events, His Son etc. granted they were in exist as but not in place for examination... Just a thought Love, Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted October 16, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.88 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted October 16, 2011 I don't think scripture mandates that position, and I don't think science supports that position. So I've rejected it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted October 16, 2011 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,698 Content Per Day: 8.03 Reputation: 21,758 Days Won: 77 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Online Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted October 16, 2011 I don't think scripture mandates that position, and I don't think science supports that position. So I've rejected it. We will see one day.... what a glorious day that will be! All shadows gone Andy and all error removed! Praise God for this Hope in Him Love, Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted October 16, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.88 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted October 16, 2011 Do you mean everything, or all the physical entities and processes? Is there a difference? I knew that would be asked . In all seriousness though, that hypothesis cannot be tested by any scientific finding unless you had some way of knowing for sure that spiritual entities / processes can be measured / observed by the scientific process. I have no idea how to create such an experiment / observational study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Do you mean everything, or all the physical entities and processes? Is there a difference? I knew that would be asked . In all seriousness though, that hypothesis cannot be tested by any scientific finding unless you had some way of knowing for sure that spiritual entities / processes can be measured / observed by the scientific process. I have no idea how to create such an experiment / observational study. What can I say? I perfectly understand you and you might be right. I know I suffer from a bad case of materialism and scientism. But I cannot avoid to notice that the difference between the unobservable and the not-existing is suspiciously very small. Ciao - viole You don't "observe" self-evident truths from the standpoing of "scientism." Neither are they materialistic in nature. Yet you cannot make the argument that self-evident truths do not exist. To argue that only that which can be observed can be said to exist is an erroneous line of reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnD Posted October 16, 2011 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 0 Topic Count: 910 Topics Per Day: 0.19 Content Count: 9,667 Content Per Day: 2.01 Reputation: 5,844 Days Won: 9 Joined: 04/07/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted October 16, 2011 Ask an atheist where all things came from (originally). I dunno Ask an atheist where did the laws of physics come from. I dunno Then the atheist adds "But I know God didn't do it!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnD Posted October 16, 2011 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 0 Topic Count: 910 Topics Per Day: 0.19 Content Count: 9,667 Content Per Day: 2.01 Reputation: 5,844 Days Won: 9 Joined: 04/07/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted October 16, 2011 Point being... we can argue at any point in history that something or someone never existed. But when we are forced to apply that argument to the totality of history then the flaws in their arguments begin to scream here I am. Until recently, people could argue there was no King David... discounting the biblical testimony of course. Before the pillars at Cesarea Phillippi were unearthed they could claim there was no Pontius Pilate... discounting the biblical testimony of course. I wonder if it ever occurred to minds like Hawkings (setting aside the poor showing of the church down through history) that this book that keeps getting proved authentic and correct actually IS the words of God... I wonder... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts