Does the Hebrew translation of Genesis 1:1 leave the door open that Go

[Rodion_Raskolnikov_]

 

 

 

I believe that's called moving the goalposts.

From your perspective I guess you can claim that you aren't adding anything to scripture, but an outsider can still accuse that of those who potentially have.

 

Thank you, Bonky. The way you phrased this is great. You said "from an outsider's" perspective. It's good that you recognize the difference. That implies that there is knowledge, ideas, and a point of view that an "outsider" hasn't considered, or hasn't been presented to. You also, tactfully, use the word 'potentially'. Very non confrontational. You can ask (legitimate) questions and insert your own perspective without shutting down the debate entirely.

I'm envious of your tact. No joke. No sarcasm. I've met few "unbelievers" who are open minded enough to engage the topic this way. Or believers. Myself included (having been on both sides of the fence). I'm better now, though.

That being said...an 'outsider' can accuse a believer of anything they please; and will. This is just 'par for the course'. There are so many more who can, have and will explain the Biblical precedent better than I can. So, I leave it to them. The point is that there is a Biblical precedent, Old and New. They aren't in conflict. Not if you study Biblical principles and Prophecy. That's beside the point, we don't have the time or space for such a discussion, and we should begin a new thread to discuss it.

Aside from that...the Bible is taken on faith. If we could "prove" the existence of God, we would BE God. We're not. Since we can't "prove" God, we can't prove His Word, either. Certainly not to an 'unbeliever'. This entire line of thought is beside the point, and a distraction from the point. The idea of life on anything other than Earth doesn't have the luxury of faith. Nor does evolution or anything else that places itself under the moniker of "science".

Alien life forms is an interesting idea and something pleasant to play with, but it's just that and only that. It remains that until there's some actual evidence to back it up. Absent of evidence, it's just what Shiloh said it is; "wishful thinking". Or, as I said, an idea to play with. Nothing to be taken seriously, though.

Adding to that...Even if life were to be discovered elsewhere it would do nothing to promote either evolution, or the Bible. We would still find ourselves in the same debate. I, as a believer, would interpret that as further evidence of God's greatness and an evolutionist would interpret it as "proof" of evolution. Both of us would claim our stakes on faith. I say faith in the case of evolutionists because there would still be no observation, no hypotheses, no tests, and no predictable test'ing' of how such lifeforms ever arrived on a place other than Earth. Just the same speculation we have here on Earth. Back to square one...regardless of life on other planets. We would, inevitably, find ourselves in the same place. Except, then we would be even MORE polarized toward our particular beliefs, if possible (and I believe it is, possible). And, yes, they're both beliefs.

 

Edited April 6, 2015 by Rodion_Raskolnikov_

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

I believe that's called moving the goalposts.

From your perspective I guess you can claim that you aren't adding anything to scripture, but an outsider can still accuse that of those who potentially have.

 

Thank you, Bonky. The way you phrased this is great. You said "from an outsider's" perspective. It's good that you recognize the difference. That implies that there is knowledge, ideas, and a point of view that an "outsider" hasn't considered, or hasn't been presented to. You also, tactfully, use the word 'potentially'. Very non confrontational. You can ask (legitimate) questions and insert your own perspective without shutting down the debate entirely.

I'm envious of your tact. No joke. No sarcasm. I've met few "unbelievers" who are open minded enough to engage the topic this way. Or believers. Myself included (having been on both sides of the fence). I'm better now, though.

That being said...an 'outsider' can accuse a believer of anything they please; and will. This is just 'par for the course'. There are so many more who can, have and will explain the Biblical precedent better than I can. So, I leave it to them. The point is that there is a Biblical precedent, Old and New. They aren't in conflict. Not if you study Biblical principles and Prophecy. That's beside the point, we don't have the time or space for such a discussion, and we should begin a new thread to discuss it.

Aside from that...the Bible is taken on faith. If we could "prove" the existence of God, we would BE God. We're not. Since we can't "prove" God, we can't prove His Word, either. Certainly not to an 'unbeliever'. This entire line of thought is beside the point, and a distraction from the point. The idea of life on anything other than Earth doesn't have the luxury of faith. Nor does evolution or anything else that places itself under the moniker of "science".

Alien life forms is an interesting idea and something pleasant to play with, but it's just that and only that. It remains that until there's some actual evidence to back it up. Absent of evidence, it's just what Shiloh said it is; "wishful thinking". Or, as I said, an idea to play with. Nothing to be taken seriously, though.

Adding to that...Even if life were to be discovered elsewhere it would do nothing to promote either evolution, or the Bible. We would still find ourselves in the same debate. I, as a believer, would interpret that as further evidence of God's greatness and an evolutionist would interpret it as "proof" of evolution. Both of us would claim our stakes on faith. I say faith in the case of evolutionists because there would still be no observation, no hypotheses, no tests, and no predictable test'ing' of how such lifeforms ever arrived on a place other than Earth. Just the same speculation we have here on Earth. Back to square one...regardless of life on other planets. We would, inevitably, find ourselves in the same place. Except, then we would be even MORE polarized toward our particular beliefs, if possible (and I believe it is, possible). And, yes, they're both beliefs.

 

 

 

 

=================================================================================================================

 

Aside from that...the Bible is taken on faith.

 

 

I hope you're "Implying" the NON -"Blind" Variety.  Because...

 

(Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

 

 

Since we can't "prove" God, we can't prove His Word, either.

 

 

Say What?

 

Try This:  

 

And This (On this very thread, Post# 35): 

 

 

If we could "prove" the existence of God, we would BE God

 

 

Non-Sequitur Fallacy

 

regards

[Rodion_Raskolnikov_]

Enoch. I believe it's evident that I don't have your level of education. That's a point in your favor. So, I'm not even going to try and argue based on education. That would be foolish.

In fact, I'm largely self educated. I can't even compete with evolutionists based purely on an educational level. Of course, I tend to think my 6th grade education (20 years ago) is above, or comparable to, most high school graduates today.

I can say that we both believe in God, we both believe that He is the God of the Bible, and we both believe in a Young Earth perspective. We may disagree on some "hair splitting" but we should always understand that we see the same thing even if we see it from different angles.

I wasn't there for Creation. I wasn't there for the Flood. I wasn't there for Babel. I wasn't there for Joseph and his dreams. I wasn't there for all the Plagues of Egypt and all the miracles of the Exodus. I wasn't there for Samson's superhuman strength. I wasn't there for the "Lion's Den", or the "Furnace". I wasn't there for all the miracles of Jesus or His resurrection. I believe in all these things not because I was there, or because I can prove them. I believe in these things for no other reason than faith. Ironic since my given name is Thomas I never had to "stick my fingers through the nail holes".

My dad is a math genius. He taught me well. As unlikely as atheism is it's still "possible". In the literal sense and only in the literal sense. True math will tell you that abiogenesis is so unlikely that its chances are as if you took every particle in the universe and wrote a number on said particle and weighed that number against one. Yet, that possibility (however minute) is still there. That possibility takes more faith than a Creator, especially when you factor in morality. I agree. Although, atheists will tell you: however unlikely it may 'seem' to throw God into the mix is adding an element that doesn't need to be there. You, and I both know that is false.

Even then, that only explains Genesis. And, not even the Biblical account of Genesis. Not to mention all the other things I have faith in.

As an absolute the Creator can't be proven to its creations by its creations. Not absolutely. It takes something more than that. It takes faith. It takes even more faith to believe in the God of the Bible.

God wanted us to have faith. He made us this way. We don't have all the answers, we were never meant to have all the answers. Not knowing requires faith. Absence of faith can only occur with pure omniscience. God "says" and we obey. Not because we "know" why but because we know Him (in absence of the why).

I apologize. I told you I don't communicate my thoughts very well. Let me try it this way. We can't "empirically" prove God. To empirically prove God would mean (literally) proving the Creator based solely upon the creations. Which is all the scientific, testable, "verifiable" evidence we have as creations. That's impossible.

You, and I, as Christians have the Bible. We see that as evidence. In some ways it can be empirical, in other ways it can never be. We will never be able to test Lucifer and a third of the angels, for example. We can never test the 6 day Creation. We can never test the Serpent (especially before it lost its legs). We can speculate on all these things but we can't prove them. Most importantly, we can never TEST God. That is WAY above our pay grade. God tests us, not the other way 'round.

Enoch, I apologize for any conflict here. As I said, we believe the same thing. We really shouldn't be splitting hairs. The most important thing isn't having a "shove it in your face" argument for all the non believers. The most important thing is that we believe. And, we do.

Peace, brother

Edited April 6, 2015 by Rodion_Raskolnikov_

[Enoch2021]

Enoch. I believe it's evident that I don't have your level of education. That's a point in your favor. So, I'm not even going to try and argue based on education. That would be foolish.

In fact, I'm largely self educated. I can't even compete with evolutionists based purely on an educational level. Of course, I tend to think my 6th grade education (20 years ago) is above, or comparable to, most high school graduates today.

I can say that we both believe in God, we both believe that He is the God of the Bible, and we both believe in a Young Earth perspective. We may disagree on some "hair splitting" but we should always understand that we see the same thing even if we see it from different angles.

I wasn't there for Creation. I wasn't there for the Flood. I wasn't there for Babel. I wasn't there for Joseph and his dreams. I wasn't there for all the Plagues of Egypt and all the miracles of the Exodus. I wasn't there for Samson's superhuman strength. I wasn't there for the "Lion's Den", or the "Furnace". I wasn't there for all the miracles of Jesus or His resurrection. I believe in all these things not because I was there, or because I can prove them. I believe in these things for no other reason than faith. Ironic since my given name is Thomas I never had to "stick my fingers through the nail holes".

My dad is a math genius. He taught me well. As unlikely as atheism is it's still "possible". In the literal sense and only in the literal sense. True math will tell you that abiogenesis is so unlikely that its chances are as if you took every particle in the universe and wrote a number on said particle and weighed that number against one. Yet, that possibility (however minute) is still there. That possibility takes more faith than a Creator, especially when you factor in morality. I agree. Although, atheists will tell you: however unlikely it may 'seem' to throw God into the mix is adding an element that doesn't need to be there. You, and I both know that is false.

Even then, that only explains Genesis. And, not even the Biblical account of Genesis. Not to mention all the other things I have faith in.

As an absolute the Creator can't be proven to its creations by its creations. Not absolutely. It takes something more than that. It takes faith. It takes even more faith to believe in the God of the Bible.

God wanted us to have faith. He made us this way. We don't have all the answers, we were never meant to have all the answers. Not knowing requires faith. Absence of faith can only occur with pure omniscience. God "says" and we obey. Not because we "know" why but because we know Him (in absence of the why).

I apologize. I told you I don't communicate my thoughts very well. Let me try it this way. We can't "empirically" prove God. To empirically prove God would mean (literally) proving the Creator based solely upon the creations. Which is all the scientific, testable, "verifiable" evidence we have as creations. That's impossible.

You, and I, as Christians have the Bible. We see that as evidence. In some ways it can be empirical, in other ways it can never be. We will never be able to test Lucifer and a third of the angels, for example. We can never test the 6 day Creation. We can never test the Serpent (especially before it lost its legs). We can speculate on all these things but we can't prove them. Most importantly, we can never TEST God. That is WAY above our pay grade. God tests us, not the other way 'round.

Enoch, I apologize for any conflict here. As I said, we believe the same thing. We really shouldn't be splitting hairs. The most important thing isn't having a "shove it in your face" argument for all the non believers. The most important thing is that we believe. And, we do.

Peace, brother

 

 

===============================================================================================================

 

Enoch. I believe it's evident that I don't have your level of education.

 

 

Education is "overrated" you are plenty capable.

 

 

Enoch, I apologize for any conflict here. 

 

 

No worries, we're just talking.

 

 

We really shouldn't be splitting hairs. The most important thing isn't having a "shove it in your face" argument for all the non believers.

 

 

Well when people's "PRIDE" gets involved misapplied characterizations are bandied about.  It's OK to be wrong and more importantly be "Teachable".  I've been quite wrong many times in this life lol and have been shown how and why both Privately and in Group settings.  Never once have I taken offense even if it was done most directly....so, it's hard for me to understand People's Stubbornness and emotional characterizations/Outbursts/Attacks when they are shown the error in their ways.  It's actually a "Tell" for Maturity, IMHO.

I count it as a Blessing whenever I'm corrected and shown the TRUTH.  No matter who/what/when/where/how it comes; in fact, I search for it!!

 

I disagree with you on the "Proof" and "Faith" issues and more importantly have SUPPORTED the rationale..."the why".  It's up to you to reckon with it.

 

 

As for "Empirically" proving the 6 Day Creation et al...well obviously nobody can without a Time Machine, that's Prima Facie.  However, all I need do is Prove THE CREATOR'S Existence....and confirm WHO/WHICH one it is, in this particular case Jesus Christ....cause I've ruled out all the pretenders; then by PROXY..... every WORD that Proceeds from HIM is Absolute TRUTH.

 

 

regards

[Rodion_Raskolnikov_]

Yeah...After reading this I thought I should add something.

Well, reiterate something I already said.

"The absence of faith can only occur with pure omniscience". This applies more to the "so called" scientific community than to anyone else who ever walked the Earth. Since our, present, scientific community believes it has all the answers (absent of any real testing and evidence) about everything from the Big Bang, to Evolution, to Dark Matter, to...what is the science du jour? Well, whatever it is, add it to the list. Our scientists are, obviously omniscient enough to teach school kids evolution as pure fact...they know everything. Oh yeah! Climate change. That's the other fantasy (I mean theory).

Sarcasm aside, my point (obviously) is that popular science requires at least as much as faith as any religion they ridicule.

[Rodion_Raskolnikov_]

 

Enoch. I believe it's evident that I don't have your level of education. That's a point in your favor. So, I'm not even going to try and argue based on education. That would be foolish.

In fact, I'm largely self educated. I can't even compete with evolutionists based purely on an educational level. Of course, I tend to think my 6th grade education (20 years ago) is above, or comparable to, most high school graduates today.

I can say that we both believe in God, we both believe that He is the God of the Bible, and we both believe in a Young Earth perspective. We may disagree on some "hair splitting" but we should always understand that we see the same thing even if we see it from different angles.

I wasn't there for Creation. I wasn't there for the Flood. I wasn't there for Babel. I wasn't there for Joseph and his dreams. I wasn't there for all the Plagues of Egypt and all the miracles of the Exodus. I wasn't there for Samson's superhuman strength. I wasn't there for the "Lion's Den", or the "Furnace". I wasn't there for all the miracles of Jesus or His resurrection. I believe in all these things not because I was there, or because I can prove them. I believe in these things for no other reason than faith. Ironic since my given name is Thomas I never had to "stick my fingers through the nail holes".

My dad is a math genius. He taught me well. As unlikely as atheism is it's still "possible". In the literal sense and only in the literal sense. True math will tell you that abiogenesis is so unlikely that its chances are as if you took every particle in the universe and wrote a number on said particle and weighed that number against one. Yet, that possibility (however minute) is still there. That possibility takes more faith than a Creator, especially when you factor in morality. I agree. Although, atheists will tell you: however unlikely it may 'seem' to throw God into the mix is adding an element that doesn't need to be there. You, and I both know that is false.

Even then, that only explains Genesis. And, not even the Biblical account of Genesis. Not to mention all the other things I have faith in.

As an absolute the Creator can't be proven to its creations by its creations. Not absolutely. It takes something more than that. It takes faith. It takes even more faith to believe in the God of the Bible.

God wanted us to have faith. He made us this way. We don't have all the answers, we were never meant to have all the answers. Not knowing requires faith. Absence of faith can only occur with pure omniscience. God "says" and we obey. Not because we "know" why but because we know Him (in absence of the why).

I apologize. I told you I don't communicate my thoughts very well. Let me try it this way. We can't "empirically" prove God. To empirically prove God would mean (literally) proving the Creator based solely upon the creations. Which is all the scientific, testable, "verifiable" evidence we have as creations. That's impossible.

You, and I, as Christians have the Bible. We see that as evidence. In some ways it can be empirical, in other ways it can never be. We will never be able to test Lucifer and a third of the angels, for example. We can never test the 6 day Creation. We can never test the Serpent (especially before it lost its legs). We can speculate on all these things but we can't prove them. Most importantly, we can never TEST God. That is WAY above our pay grade. God tests us, not the other way 'round.

Enoch, I apologize for any conflict here. As I said, we believe the same thing. We really shouldn't be splitting hairs. The most important thing isn't having a "shove it in your face" argument for all the non believers. The most important thing is that we believe. And, we do.

Peace, brother

 

 

===============================================================================================================

 

Enoch. I believe it's evident that I don't have your level of education.

 

 

Education is "overrated" you are plenty capable.

 

 

Enoch, I apologize for any conflict here. 

 

 

No worries, we're just talking.

 

 

We really shouldn't be splitting hairs. The most important thing isn't having a "shove it in your face" argument for all the non believers.

 

 

Well when people's "PRIDE" gets involved misapplied characterizations are bandied about.  It's OK to be wrong and more importantly be "Teachable".  I've been quite wrong many times in this life lol and have been shown how and why both Privately and in Group settings.  Never once have I taken offense even if it was done most directly....so, it's hard for me to understand People's Stubbornness and emotional characterizations/Outbursts/Attacks when they are shown the error in their ways.  It's actually a "Tell" for Maturity, IMHO.

I count it as a Blessing whenever I'm corrected and shown the TRUTH.  No matter who/what/when/where/how it comes; in fact, I search for it!!

 

I disagree with you on the "Proof" and "Faith" issues and more importantly have SUPPORTED the rationale..."the why".  It's up to you to reckon with it.

 

 

As for "Empirically" proving the 6 Day Creation et al...well obviously nobody can without a Time Machine, that's Prima Facie.  However, all I need do is Prove THE CREATOR'S Existence....and confirm WHO/WHICH one it is, in this particular case Jesus Christ....cause I've ruled out all the pretenders; then by PROXY..... every WORD that Proceeds from HIM is Absolute TRUTH.

 

 

regards

 

Thank you Enoch As I said, I'm used to 'debating' with unreasonable people: atheists. You can also call them lunatics. You back 'em into a corner with logic and all they can do is start quoting other people and reprimand you for not quoting other people. I don't think these people ever heard of logic or had half an original thought between their entire "collective" (since they tend to also be communists and/or socialists). After (or before and during) comes the name calling and shouting.

You're different. You are a reasonable person. Thank you for that This is a good place, with good people. We can actually discuss a topic with an archaic notion like 'reason'. Oh, so quaint. And, we can do it without insulting each other or shouting at each other. So nice Ahhh. It feels like I just lowered myself into a hot tub of water on a cold morning. It's literally that relaxing.

Well, I said it in my first post (on this particular topic) and I said it again in my next post. The absence of faith can only come with pure omniscience. Only God can, ever, be omniscient (about anything). This applies, obviously, to any religion and it applies more so to anything that labels itself as a science.

If we knew anything (for certain) we can then claim omniscience. Well, not omniscience...omnipresent authority on the subject, which is still under God's title. Not ours, on any level. Anything we believe is still that: a belief. Religion or "science". It still requires faith.

God is still not empirically verifiable (which is redundant, I realize). We don't have a time machine to prove the Big Bang and evolution, so we can't prove the 6 day Creation account, either. Both require absolute faith in absence of empirical testing. It all boils down to a matter of where we choose to place our faith.

I believe in God because I choose to. As we all do (or, not). God wants me to believe in Him, yes. He will never make me believe in him. Like you Enoch, I believe the evidence is weighted in favor of God. Weighted in the favor of, and absolute evidence of...they're two different things.

As I said, God is not empirically testable. As creations all we can observe (empirically) is creations. It's logically impossible to prove the Creator, empirically, based upon creations (which is all we have to observe).

If you have a way to "empirically" test God you don't need to be posting here you need to be on the cover of Time Magazine with a still shot of you giving Dawkins a face plant. That test would, literally, change the world and usher in the End Times. It sounds like I'm being sarcastic, but I'm not. Even though I've been known to be sarcastic I'm better, now. Seriously, though, I (really) want to see this test. I'll face plant every stupid atheist I ever encountered.

Since we, really, can't prove the Creator, we can neither prove which Creator He is. Not, scientifically anyway.

We can study "so called" subjective material, like morality and faith. These are the only true evidences of a Creator. Well, those and the fact that God has written His Will upon our hearts. We can choose to reject morality, faith, and even His influence upon our hearts (until they're as hard as Pharoh's).

There can never be any "verifiable" created evidence for the Creator (in our physical reality). There is, however, the logical realization that there either is a morality, or there isn't. Believe in God, or don't. But, if you don't you can't honestly believe in any morality. This is in absence of the fact that God has touched all our hearts, in some way. When you get right down to it...that's the thing. How much are you willing to let God into your heart. That's the only real evidence we have. And, that's hardly "empirical".

 

[Enoch2021]

 

Thank you Enoch As I said, I'm used to 'debating' with unreasonable people: atheists. You can also call them lunatics. You back 'em into a corner with logic and all they can do is start quoting other people and reprimand you for not quoting other people. I don't think these people ever heard of logic or had half an original thought between their entire "collective" (since they tend to also be communists and/or socialists). After (or before and during) comes the name calling and shouting.

You're different. You are a reasonable person. Thank you for that This is a good place, with good people. We can actually discuss a topic with an archaic notion like 'reason'. Oh, so quaint. And, we can do it without insulting each other or shouting at each other. So nice Ahhh. It feels like I just lowered myself into a hot tub of water on a cold morning. It's literally that relaxing.

Well, I said it in my first post (on this particular topic) and I said it again in my next post. The absence of faith can only come with pure omniscience. Only God can, ever, be omniscient (about anything). This applies, obviously, to any religion and it applies more so to anything that labels itself as a science.

If we knew anything (for certain) we can then claim omniscience. Well, not omniscience...omnipresent authority on the subject, which is still under God's title. Not ours, on any level. Anything we believe is still that: a belief. Religion or "science". It still requires faith.

God is still not empirically verifiable (which is redundant, I realize). We don't have a time machine to prove the Big Bang and evolution, so we can't prove the 6 day Creation account, either. Both require absolute faith in absence of empirical testing. It all boils down to a matter of where we choose to place our faith.

I believe in God because I choose to. As we all do (or, not). God wants me to believe in Him, yes. He will never make me believe in him. Like you Enoch, I believe the evidence is weighted in favor of God. Weighted in the favor of, and absolute evidence of...they're two different things.

As I said, God is not empirically testable. As creations all we can observe (empirically) is creations. It's logically impossible to prove the Creator, empirically, based upon creations (which is all we have to observe).

If you have a way to "empirically" test God you don't need to be posting here you need to be on the cover of Time Magazine with a still shot of you giving Dawkins a face plant. That test would, literally, change the world and usher in the End Times. It sounds like I'm being sarcastic, but I'm not. Even though I've been known to be sarcastic I'm better, now. Seriously, though, I (really) want to see this test. I'll face plant every stupid atheist I ever encountered.

Since we, really, can't prove the Creator, we can neither prove which Creator He is. Not, scientifically anyway.

We can study "so called" subjective material, like morality and faith. These are the only true evidences of a Creator. Well, those and the fact that God has written His Will upon our hearts. We can choose to reject morality, faith, and even His influence upon our hearts (until they're as hard as Pharoh's).

There can never be any "verifiable" created evidence for the Creator (in our physical reality). There is, however, the logical realization that there either is a morality, or there isn't. Believe in God, or don't. But, if you don't you can't honestly believe in any morality. This is in absence of the fact that God has touched all our hearts, in some way. When you get right down to it...that's the thing. How much are you willing to let God into your heart. That's the only real evidence we have. And, that's hardly "empirical".

 

 

 

========================================================================================================

 

 

If you have a way to "empirically" test God you don't need to be posting here you need to be on the cover of Time Magazine

 

 

Get Them ON THE HORN!!!!  

 

1. Empirical Denotes: Observable, TESTABLE, Repeatable, and Falsifiable.  Jesus Christ (The CREATOR) was Here and passed all these with Flying Colors.

 

2. You only have 2 choices as to "How" we are here: Nature (Unguided) or Intelligent Design (GOD). 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 pull these up:

 

1.  

 

***2. 

 

VOILA!!

 

#2 is their Huckleberry. 

 

 

I need an agent!!!  

[Rodion_Raskolnikov_]

Enoch. I love what you say. I agree with it. But, I can't 'physically' test Jesus. No one can.

I, personally, know that Jesus the Christ existed. I know He was (and is) the Christ. But, there's no way for me to test this or prove it.

Jesus Christ is not testable. There have never been tests that prove Jesus' miracles. We have the Bible. I take the Bible on faith, at its Word. So do you. This is anything but testing. We take the Bible on faith. On faith, I repeat. Because the Bible "says so".  For no other reason, and as true Christians we need no other reason. It's pure folly to confuse faith with "scientific" fact. More than folly.

If that's your argument as empirical proof of a Creator, you have (more than) a long way to go.

I have argued, countless times, with any number of atheists that we are given the choice of accepting Christ, or rejecting Him. This is wholly a matter of faith. Based upon faith. Like I said, I never saw Jesus perform any miracles and I sure wasn't there for His resurrection. I, also, have no way of testing any of His miracles or resurrection but I know all of it happened; without evidence. You don't have any evidence, either. Yet, you believe in it just as I do without any verifiable data.

It's verifiable in our hearts, in our souls...but, not in any physical testing. We must be honest in this. We must be honest in all things, but especially this. Otherwise, I would have absented this thread long ago.

We can't disclaim evolution based upon the fact that it has no empirical evidence and then claim any number of things as fact that have no empirical evidence. If we do this we are no better than the atheists and evolutionists. Literally, no better. In fact, it makes us the same because we are behaving the same.

The argument between Genesis and abiogenesis is irrelevant. The argument of which God is true, or if there is one, is irrelevant. Neither side has irrefutable proof because any proof requires testing.

Not testing based upon emotion, not testing based upon majority appeal, not testing based upon historical reference. It requires observation, first, then a hypothesis based upon said observation, then tests, and tests, and more tests...Just like evolution, Which, you and I have both vehemently argued against.

In order to empirically prove God we must be able to test God. This is an inescapable fact. It remains a fact, no matter how we try and spin it. Just like testing evolution.

And, no. This isn't even in the same category of "laying out the fleece". Putting the fleece out is anything but testing God. It's assuming there is a God, to begin with, and then asking Him which choice you should make (based upon the presupposed conclusion that there already is a God).

Testing the pure existence of God is more than impossible. It is sacrilege. The Creator isn't tested by His creations. It works the other way 'round. When we start to think that we can test Him we start to think we're, somehow, on His level. We're not even close. This is nothing other than sacrilege.

God exists, or He doesn't. That's all there is to it. He gives us the free will to believe what we will, and we do...believe what we will. There is more evidence for God, than against Him but that's my opinion. Even if there weren't I might still believe in Him. As I should, as I must. God is real regardless of any evidence we have for, or against Him. He still remains our Creator. Any "physical" evidence is inconsequential to this fact, or lack of it.

I apologize, once again that we should be in conflict over a thing that we should be rejoicing in. Especially, around the time of Easter. I, truly, am saddened that we are at any kind of odds. Truly. More so than you probably realize.

I am sorry that this ever happened. We should not be debating about this, of all things. Normally, I enjoy debate (win or lose). This is different. I'm becoming physically ill at the prospect of arguing with a brother who believes in all the same things I do. Especially, over hair splitting. I feel (gag) like a Pharisee.

Yet again, I apologize. I may come back to this thread but I will not come back to this topic. It is nothing but divisive and destructive.

Again, peace brother

[Rodion_Raskolnikov_]

Enoch! Duh!

I told you I'm largely uneducated and that I'm not a good communicator. This means that I'm also unable to (as) easily recognize what others are telling me.

I read your post (for the third time). Yes, I tend to read them multiple times. Any post. But, I like yours, especially (generally).

Ok. I realized that we're, pretty much, agreeing with each other.

Sorry for my ineptitude.

[Enoch2021]

Enoch! Duh!

I told you I'm largely uneducated and that I'm not a good communicator. This means that I'm also unable to (as) easily recognize what others are telling me.

I read your post (for the third time). Yes, I tend to read them multiple times. Any post. But, I like yours, especially (generally).

Ok. I realized that we're, pretty much, agreeing with each other.

Sorry for my ineptitude.

 

 

No worries