nebula Posted February 4, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted February 4, 2014 How is the Oort Cloud fact? It hasn't been seen! If you believe in God, He was there. He started it all, so I think I will trust His word on events more than the scientists who *think* they know with no observational evidence for their theory whatsoever. If an atheist were to ask you, "How is God fact? He hasn't been seen!" how would you respond? Point being, you need to be careful how you approach your challenges. In any event, I did a search on "is oort cloud fact" and found many references describing the Oort Cloud as "hypothesized" and "disputed." So in essence, even the science community isn't considering it a "fact". If I had the time, that would make for an interesting study, why the Oort Cloud model is the most accepted explanation for where the far reaching comets come from, what other models have been proposed, and why were they not accepted? That's one thing I like about science. It's kind of fun trying to figure out mysteries. It's even fun having preconceived notions turned on their heads. I remember how wow'ed I felt at the discovery that black holes are in the centers of galaxies, including our own. I remember the fascination I felt when I first learned the contention that Pluto fits more in line with the icy dirt-balls orbiting within and beyond Neptune's orbit than it does the other 8 planets of our solar system, and later watching the whole process of the Astronomical Society voting on whether or not Pluto should be re-classified. It was cool! Hey Neb, "If an atheist were to ask you, "How is God fact? He hasn't been seen!" how would you respond?" Well knowing there are only 2 possible choices for HOW we are here: Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD), I would go about it this way..... You're walking down a country road nobody around for miles and you come across a BMW. "MOST" intuitively know that nature didn't create the car there had to be an Engineer (Designer). Even though you will most likely never see the (Designer)....you know HE'S out there! "science" or the "Scientific Method" isn't he only tool we have to ascertain "TRUTH". We have Intellect (Inductive/Deductive Reasoning, Logic, Critical Thinking Skills, and good ole fashioned Common Sense) combine these with SOUND Scientific Principles and you have a pretty powerful combination. In this Specific Case......."Specific Complexity" is the overriding factor in the matter. Yes, but while this makes logical sense to you and me, I have yet to encounter an atheist actually being swayed by this argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted February 4, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Hey again Neb, "Science looks to nature to explain nature." Science is the Pursuit of Knowledge @ its most basic. Then that pursuit was corrupted in a sense to only allow that pursuit via "Naturalistic" Processes or a "Naturalistic" explanation. I can understand it to a point, the "Scientific Method" by it's very nature puts a dagger in Fables/Myths/Stories due to the requirement of TESTING. Therefore "Science" by it's current pursuit of Knowledge through Naturalistic Processes only, is self-limited. Also, and I have mentioned this previously...There's a self Inflicted Conundrum: Knowledge, Information, Truth are SUPER-Natural by definition. So in effect, they're trying to ascertain Knowledge (SUPER-natural) by only Naturalistic Processes. It's tantamount to trying to discover what we breathe...... but, a priori excluding AIR from the choices....and breathing it all while attempting to rule it out!! Do you see it? "science advances by asking such things as, "Why? How?" and seeking those answers." "how do we "prove" that our God is more "right" than their gods?" If we are Correct and 1LOT is Correct (Which it is ) Then Whoever "CREATED" is outside of Time. I could then predict that this "CREATOR" can see the End from the Beginning (our Time) or can tell us things that happen before they happen........................PROPHECY!! This particular ONE (MY GOD) put a stipulation that all of these "Prophecies" had to be 100% accurate without failure. Can we verify this? Historical Records/Historical Science. Do we know of such?? Also, there can be only one "CREATOR", more than one is logical absurdity and incoherent Yes, that makes perfect sense to you and me, unfortunately, only Christians see it this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted February 4, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.89 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted February 4, 2014 The teleological argument originated before the concept of evolution of course, as an alternative explanation. One thing one must consider with the watchmaker scenario is that If there is a designer, then by necessity all surrounding objects are also designed (rocks, grass, earth). Although objects in nature can be awesome, can we really say a magnificent sand dune for example is designed? You're getting confused between "order" and "Specific Complexity" "Order" is or can be: abcdabcdabcdabcdabcdabcdabcd. "Sand Dune"......... Nature Construct. "Specific Complexity": The Declaration of Independence. "Sand Castle"....... Intelligent Design Construct. Seti: This search would be pointless and quite Nonsensical if they weren't able to tell the difference in random noises "order" from "NATURE" and "Specific Complex" communication "INTELLIGENT DESIGN". "Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity." L. Orgel PhD Chemistry, The Origins of Life (New York: John Wiley, 1973), p. 189. Do you mean Specified Complexity as described by William Dembski? This? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity I guess, Yes. Although I didn't do any Math with it. It was sort of intuitive....I looked @ a "Sand Dune" and then a "Sand Castle" and said...yep, I got it. I didn't think that I needed to sit in my attic for 300 years with a scientific calculator, a severe case of rickets, and really bad coffee breadth to figure it out. Am in Error? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted February 4, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted February 4, 2014 How is the Oort Cloud fact? It hasn't been seen! If you believe in God, He was there. He started it all, so I think I will trust His word on events more than the scientists who *think* they know with no observational evidence for their theory whatsoever. If an atheist were to ask you, "How is God fact? He hasn't been seen!" how would you respond? Point being, you need to be careful how you approach your challenges. In any event, I did a search on "is oort cloud fact" and found many references describing the Oort Cloud as "hypothesized" and "disputed." So in essence, even the science community isn't considering it a "fact". If I had the time, that would make for an interesting study, why the Oort Cloud model is the most accepted explanation for where the far reaching comets come from, what other models have been proposed, and why were they not accepted? That's one thing I like about science. It's kind of fun trying to figure out mysteries. It's even fun having preconceived notions turned on their heads. I remember how wow'ed I felt at the discovery that black holes are in the centers of galaxies, including our own. I remember the fascination I felt when I first learned the contention that Pluto fits more in line with the icy dirt-balls orbiting within and beyond Neptune's orbit than it does the other 8 planets of our solar system, and later watching the whole process of the Astronomical Society voting on whether or not Pluto should be re-classified. It was cool! Well, my response would be that God walked the earth. He was the most written about historical figure in the world. The book that contains His words is the best-selling book in all of history. There were over 300 prophecies written about Him thousands of years before He was born and He fulfilled all of them. This Man said He was there in the beginning, spoke of Adam, spoke of the flood and confirmed it all. I would also share that there was a supernatural event connected to Christ that was confirmed to happen by the Pagans in that area...the three hour darkness that took over right at Christ's death in the middle of the day. It wasn't an eclipse since Christ died during the Passover, which is a full moon. Eclipses can't happen during full moons. Many people in that area not even connected to Christ wrote about and confirmed this darkness...though they called it an eclipse of the sun, not knowing back then what actually causes them. I also say that everything that is created needs to have a Creator and it takes MORE faith to believe everything just happened or formed than to believe it was created by God. I agree, but convincing a non-believer of this is another matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted February 4, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.89 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted February 4, 2014 How is the Oort Cloud fact? It hasn't been seen! If you believe in God, He was there. He started it all, so I think I will trust His word on events more than the scientists who *think* they know with no observational evidence for their theory whatsoever. If an atheist were to ask you, "How is God fact? He hasn't been seen!" how would you respond? Point being, you need to be careful how you approach your challenges. In any event, I did a search on "is oort cloud fact" and found many references describing the Oort Cloud as "hypothesized" and "disputed." So in essence, even the science community isn't considering it a "fact". If I had the time, that would make for an interesting study, why the Oort Cloud model is the most accepted explanation for where the far reaching comets come from, what other models have been proposed, and why were they not accepted? That's one thing I like about science. It's kind of fun trying to figure out mysteries. It's even fun having preconceived notions turned on their heads. I remember how wow'ed I felt at the discovery that black holes are in the centers of galaxies, including our own. I remember the fascination I felt when I first learned the contention that Pluto fits more in line with the icy dirt-balls orbiting within and beyond Neptune's orbit than it does the other 8 planets of our solar system, and later watching the whole process of the Astronomical Society voting on whether or not Pluto should be re-classified. It was cool! Hey Neb, "If an atheist were to ask you, "How is God fact? He hasn't been seen!" how would you respond?" Well knowing there are only 2 possible choices for HOW we are here: Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD), I would go about it this way..... You're walking down a country road nobody around for miles and you come across a BMW. "MOST" intuitively know that nature didn't create the car there had to be an Engineer (Designer). Even though you will most likely never see the (Designer)....you know HE'S out there! "science" or the "Scientific Method" isn't he only tool we have to ascertain "TRUTH". We have Intellect (Inductive/Deductive Reasoning, Logic, Critical Thinking Skills, and good ole fashioned Common Sense) combine these with SOUND Scientific Principles and you have a pretty powerful combination. In this Specific Case......."Specific Complexity" is the overriding factor in the matter. Yes, but while this makes logical sense to you and me, I have yet to encounter an atheist actually being swayed by this argument. Yes, you're right. But it's because of their a priori convictions and world view that blinds them. I have yet to encounter a logical counter argument, however. ps. like the behive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthonyjmcgirr Posted February 4, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 14 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 194 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 37 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/31/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1984 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Well I've never met an atheist who was actually willing to sit down and have an honest, open-minded debate and listen to the evidence presented. In most cases, they think we're ignorant, dumb and pathetic for believing in a 'sky-daddy', talking donkeys, the Ark, etc. I would love the chance to have an open debate where we exchange information. If anyone is willing, please let me know lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted February 4, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.89 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Hey again Neb, "Science looks to nature to explain nature." Science is the Pursuit of Knowledge @ its most basic. Then that pursuit was corrupted in a sense to only allow that pursuit via "Naturalistic" Processes or a "Naturalistic" explanation. I can understand it to a point, the "Scientific Method" by it's very nature puts a dagger in Fables/Myths/Stories due to the requirement of TESTING. Therefore "Science" by it's current pursuit of Knowledge through Naturalistic Processes only, is self-limited. Also, and I have mentioned this previously...There's a self Inflicted Conundrum: Knowledge, Information, Truth are SUPER-Natural by definition. So in effect, they're trying to ascertain Knowledge (SUPER-natural) by only Naturalistic Processes. It's tantamount to trying to discover what we breathe...... but, a priori excluding AIR from the choices....and breathing it all while attempting to rule it out!! Do you see it? "science advances by asking such things as, "Why? How?" and seeking those answers." "how do we "prove" that our God is more "right" than their gods?" If we are Correct and 1LOT is Correct (Which it is ) Then Whoever "CREATED" is outside of Time. I could then predict that this "CREATOR" can see the End from the Beginning (our Time) or can tell us things that happen before they happen........................PROPHECY!! This particular ONE (MY GOD) put a stipulation that all of these "Prophecies" had to be 100% accurate without failure. Can we verify this? Historical Records/Historical Science. Do we know of such?? Also, there can be only one "CREATOR", more than one is logical absurdity and incoherent Yes, that makes perfect sense to you and me, unfortunately, only Christians see it this way. We need to get out there with Mega-Phones spreading the Message!! My younger Brother, after hearing this and a couple other arguments....gave his Life to Christ. There will be some that won't HERE regardless of what you say....but there will be some that do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray wolf Posted February 4, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,046 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 194 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/25/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/30/1960 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Well I've never met an atheist who was actually willing to sit down and have an honest, open-minded debate and listen to the evidence presented. In most cases, they think we're ignorant, dumb and pathetic for believing in a 'sky-daddy', talking donkeys, the Ark, etc. I would love the chance to have an open debate where we exchange information. If anyone is willing, please let me know lol You must be very careful. They have some very sophisticated arguments, some of which frankly have no good responses- - we just don't know, but they can make you stumble. Particularly those atheists who are former Christians in ministry, e.g. John Loftus or Dan Barker. Sometimes it's best to let them go and work out their own destinies and let God deal with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted February 4, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,250 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,981 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted February 4, 2014 Also, there can be only one "CREATOR", more than one is logical absurdity and incoherent actually I think it was the dynamic trio.... Yes but they are ONE. just as we are one with them..... as per the prayer of Jesus himself. No, not in the same way we are one with them. The oneness of the persons of the Trinity are unique and there is nothing in the human experiece that serves as an adequate point of reference or analogy for their relationship. John 17:21-23 22 "And the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as We are one ; 23 I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, that the world may know that Thou didst send Me, and didst love them, even as Thou didst love Me. NASB Yes, but your stastement was that we are one with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. That verse is talking about the unity of believers with onanother. It is not talking about belivers being one with "dynamic trio" as you called them. We are one with Jesus and Jesus one with the Father.... that's close enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted February 4, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 4, 2014 Well I've never met an atheist who was actually willing to sit down and have an honest, open-minded debate and listen to the evidence presented. In most cases, they think we're ignorant, dumb and pathetic for believing in a 'sky-daddy', talking donkeys, the Ark, etc. I would love the chance to have an open debate where we exchange information. If anyone is willing, please let me know lol You must be very careful. They have some very sophisticated arguments, some of which frankly have no good responses- - we just don't know, but they can make you stumble. Particularly those atheists who are former Christians in ministry, e.g. John Loftus or Dan Barker. Sometimes it's best to let them go and work out their own destinies and let God deal with them. This is exactly right. While many atheists are pretty unsophisticated reasoners, there are some who are fairly brutal. I would not assume there is a knock down argument out there by which you can get anyone who pays attention. There isn't one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts