Jump to content
IGNORED

6 days Creation


Zoltan777

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

On 9/11/2017 at 7:34 AM, Kevinb said:

As these are small bodies in the outer solar system, and binaries are likely to have been formed through collisions or gravitational capture, this does not violate the nebular hypothesis. 
 

Yes and Pocahontas was a MI6 Mermaid and the mastermind behind the sinking of the Lusitania.

 

NEBULAR HYPOTHESIS (rotflol, btw):

"Some 4 Billion Years ago, the sun had ejected a tail, or a filament, of material that cooled and collected and thus formed the planets...."
General History of Nature and Theory of the Heavens.  Immanuel Kant, 1755

The Originator of this Mess met with Edmund Halley (Halley's Comet) @ Cambridge...

Emanuel Swedenborg (Originator) proffered this nonsense 21 years before Kant and Laplace.  Guess where he got the idea?....by talking with spirits from Jupiter, Mars, Venus, and the Moon !!! 

Kant Picked up the idea from Halley and Laplace stamped it without doing the math (Appears they were Buddies).  If he had done the Math....we would have never heard of such nonsense.


Nebular Hypothesis aficionados....let me introduce The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum:  Angular momentum remains constant unless acted on by an external torque.
Like a skater spinning faster when their arms are pulled in close to the body.  In the formation of our sun from a nebula in space, the same effect would have occurred as the gases allegedly contracted into the center to form the sun (Yea, Right.  Never heard of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics...AGAIN!!). 
This would have caused the sun to spin very rapidly. But our sun spins very slowly, while the planets move very rapidly around the sun. In fact, although the sun has over 99.86% of the mass of the solar system, it has less than 2% of the angular momentum. This pattern is directly opposite to the pattern expected by the --- Jeanne Dixon style 'prediction', by the nebular hypothesis.


The Outer Planets are larger than the Inner Ones; again, directly opposite of the Nostradamus  Style   'prediction'...


“Pssst … astronomers who model the formation of the solar system have kept a dirty little secret: Uranus and Neptune don’t exist. Or at least computer simulations have never explained how planets as big as the two gas giants could form so far from the sun. Bodies orbited so slowly in the outer parts of the solar system that the slow process of gravitational accretion would need more time than the age of the solar system to form bodies with 14.5 and 17.1 times the mass of Earth.”
Naeye, R., Birth of Uranus and Neptune, Astronomy 28(4):30, 2000

The nebular hypothesis, Edgar Cayce Style 'predicts' that, as the nebula spiralled inwards, all the resulting planets and comets would rotate and orbit in the same direction (prograde). But Venus and Uranus rotate in the opposite direction, called retrograde.  Lucy has more splaining to do!

Retrograde orbits Satellites/Moons: Triton (Neptune), Ananke, Carme, Pasiphae and Sinope (Jupiter),  Phoebe (Saturn).

There is No Plausible 'Naturalistic' Solar Origin of the Planets!!  There is No Plausible 'Naturalistic' Origin of the Sun or....... The UNIVERSE !!!!

"The process by which an interstellar cloud is concentrated until it is held together gravitationally to become a protostar is not known. In quantitative work, it has simply been assumed that the number of atoms per cm3 has somehow increased about a thousand-fold over that in a dense nebula. The two principal factors inhibiting the formation of a protostar are that the gas has a tendency to disperse [ ERRR..The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT) !!! ] before the density becomes high enough for self-gravitation [ Which 'gravity' einSHtienian or newtonian, love??] to be effective, and that any initial angular momentum would cause excessively rapid rotation as the material contracts. Some mechanism [ That DIRECTLY VIOLATES 2LOT !!! ] must therefore be provided for gathering the material into a sufficiently small volume that self-gravitation [ that doesn't exist ] may become effective, and the ANGULAR MOMENTUM MUST IN SOME WAY BE REMOVED. funny.gif
Novotny, E: Introduction to Stellar Atmospheres and Interiors (1973), Oxford University Press, pp. 279-280.


"There is no reasonable astronomical scenario in which mineral grains in space gas clouds can condense." 
Hoyle, F., Wickramasinghe, C: "Where Microbes Boldly Went," in New Scientist (1981), pp. 412-413.

"If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect."
Geoffrey Burbidge; Director, Kitt Peak National Observatory. Science, V.295, p.76, 1/4/2002. 


Abraham Loeb, of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics, says, “The truth is that we don’t understand star formation at a fundamental level.”
Marcus Chown, ‘Let there be light’, New Scientist 157(2120):26-30, 7 February 1998.

Yea, THE TRUTH is Abraham ---  WILLFUL IGNORANCE (!!), you don't understand it ...because it's Directly Violates The Laws of Quantum Mechanics and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics !!!!  
So you've chosen to 'Whistle past the Graveyard' and float a feigned Argument to Ignorance (Fallacy) --- with an 'Implied' Argument to the Future (Fallacy) wrapped around its incoherent ankles to keep your Mind Numbing "Just So" Story Fairytales ALIVE !!!

"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?
Paul Davies: " Universe In Reverse, Can Time Run Backwards"; A Second Look, 1979, p.27

That's Right Paul...it's a REAL "Puzzle",  sheesh.  It's right in front of you, YOU JUST SAID IT !!! -- (The Second Law of Thermodynamics) Ahh, HELLO??

 

**All of this Contradictory Fairytale Story Telling is Moot anyway:  There are No: Terra Firma "Planets" or "Vacuum of Space". 

 

regards

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

On 9/11/2017 at 7:34 AM, Kevinb said:

The sun?  You do understand the sun is a nuclear fusion pressure reactor essentially..

24.gif     Yes and I'm a Saudi Prince and a Mau Mau Fighter Pilot.

So according to "The Narrative" (:rolleyes:), the Inner Core Temp of the Sun is 15 Million Kelvin. The outer surface of the Sun (PhotoSphere) is ~ 5800 Kelvin. On it's way to and through the Chromosphere, the temp slowly rises THEN... GOES PARABOLIC from 10,000 K to 500,000 K when nearing the Corona; THEN:
 
1 Million K - 10 Million K through Corona !!! 

I suppose the Fairytale Pseudo-Science Priests collectively missed the Lectures on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics; Heat really does flow UP 'parabolic' HILLS! :blink:

This is tantamount to standing near a Wood Stove then moving back 500 meters because it's too hot, then you... 

Spontaneously Combust !!! :blow-up:

There's your "SCIENCE" folks, take a Big Whiff.

 

Quote

bigger stars forming heavier elements

Yes, I saw that Discovery Special too:  "How the Universe Works" with Larry 'short bus' Krauss..."We are all star dust". :rolleyes:

So now, back to Reality: Please Scientifically Validate...

a.  What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b.  Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c.  Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d.  Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

Ya see this ^^^^^^^^, this is "SCIENCE" !!!

If you fail to provide the basic pedigree information, all this "drivel" is a... Fairytale "Just So" Story. K?

 

I see the problem.  Do you know the Difference between "Science" and Fairytale "Just-So" Stories?  It's ALL in The Method...

"Science" --  Method:  The Scientific Method.

Fairytale "Just-So" Stories --- Method:  Imagination.

Any Questions?

 

Quote

some here do extrapolation from the bible indicting flat earth 

Really?  Show this extrapolation...?

 

regards

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  423
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   70
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/18/2017
  • Status:  Offline

5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

That would first require me to prove the existence of God, which I cannot.

That's why its not rational to believe until you can. This applies to other scenarios and claims.

To say you have evidence but not proof is contradictory.. the terms are essentially the same. 

5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:
Quote

faith yes. Faith needed in the absence of evidence.

Faith never happens in the absence of evidence.  I have evidence for God's existence, but no proof. I don't ever claim to be able to "prove" anything.

And again. What you have is observation and data then you assert God did it and does do things still but can't prove that as you've not demonstrated any mechanism or causation to God. 

5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

I have provided evidence, which you have ignored.  I am not going to keep re-posting and re-posting only for you to brush it off.   I posted a link from Hugh Ross, an professional astronomer and you ignored that.  I have posted about the way nature reveals an intelligence behind it, and instead of inquiring further you, more or less, just laughed it off.   I have no evidence that you will accept.  And I think we both know that.   It's not that I don't have evidence, but you will not accept what can be provided.  I have no incentive to go deeper into the evidence I have if I believe you will just wave it off.

I'll look again...ross the old earth creationist and supporter of the big bang as per creation site? Is his view supported in world astronomy and astrophysics? Beware of argument from authority fallacy.

http://creation.mobi/the-dubious-apologetics-of-hugh-ross

5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

That's not what I said.  I said your brakes worked fine 9 times out of 10.   But if you had reason to believe that 1 time out of 10 your brakes would fail, that alone would be enough to not operate the vehicle.   The point is that you don't have evidence the brakes would fail, you would have no qualms at all about getting in the car.  You wouldn't give it a thought.

Well the evidence for brake issue initially is the brake fail 1 time out of 10... then further evidence could be break pads... This is all demonstrable and causation can be shown. This is nothing like faith in a supernatural being that's not demonstrable and causation can't be shown.. kinda false analogy.

5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Just because you don't believe the Bible, that doesn't mean it's claims are false.

Agreed. Doesn't mean they are true. Claims need to demonstrated to be true not asserted.

5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Eating, or not shell fish and wearing linen mixed with wool have nothing to do with the Bible's accuracy and truth claims.

There are witches today.  Every heard of the Wiccans?  

Yes Adam and Eve and a talking serpent... the Bible presents them as real characters/people.

Do you eat shellfish .. wear mixed fabrics? I suspect yes. If yes then you pick and choose what to take on board from the bible. 

What might the bible indicate what witches are? In terms of powers I mean? Do wiccans have powers too.. so this could be demonstrated as they are around in modern times?  If no powers we're just killing a portion of the population coz the bible says? Is this moral?

We're a bit off thread aren't we. Hope others don't mind a little latitude.

I appreciate the discussion Shiloh. I've never really heard the case of God like this. Most others just try to pick holes in current scientific understanding and offer little else.

Edited by Kevinb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
10 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

That's why its not rational to believe until you can. This applies to other scenarios and claims.

No, it is rational believe with evidence.  If I could prove God's existence, it would no longer be a case of belief.

Quote

To say you have evidence but not proof is contradictory.. the terms are essentially the same. 

No, they are not the same.  Not even our courts of law treat evidence as proof.

Quote

And again. What you have is observation and data then you assert God did it and does do things still but can't prove that as you've not demonstrated any mechanism or causation to God. 

I have observation, which more than evolutionists have, but they seem to have no problem asserting what they cannot demonstrate or observe.

 

Quote

I'll look again...ross the old earth creationist and supporter of the big bang as per creation site? Is his view supported in world astronomy and astrophysics? Beware of argument from authority fallacy.

I only presented him due to the fact that he corroborates my view on how nature reveals God.

 

Quote

Well the evidence for brake issue initially is the brake fail 1 time out of 10... then further evidence could be break pads... This is all demonstrable and causation can be shown. This is nothing like faith in a supernatural being that's not demonstrable and causation can't be shown.. kinda false analogy.

It's not a false analogy at all.   The point is that if we don't believe that a car is safe, we won't ride in it.  The cause isn't the point.   The issue is that faith, or the lack thereof, is based on evidence we can observe about the vehicle.

Quote

Do you eat shellfish .. wear mixed fabrics? I suspect yes. If yes then you pick and choose what to take on board from the bible. 

Not all commandments given in the Bible are for all people, for all time.   God gave Israel commandments, some of which were only for Israel and were not intended to be for all people.

Quote

What might the bible indicate what witches are? In terms of powers I mean? Do wiccans have powers too.. so this could be demonstrated as they are around in modern times?  If no powers we're just killing a portion of the population coz the bible says? Is this moral?

Witches have no real power.  Wiccans are more of neo-pagan thing.  But there was a witch in the Bible, the Witch of Endor, who was just as fake as our witches of today.
 

Quote

 

We're a bit off thread aren't we. Hope others don't mind a little latitude.

I appreciate the discussion Shiloh. I've never really heard the case of God like this. Most others just try to pick holes in current scientific understanding and offer little else.

 

I am enjoying the conversation as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

6 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

That's why its not rational to believe until you can. This applies to other scenarios and claims.

Your 'current' appeal is laying back in ashes in this very thread, here: https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/210558-6-days-creation/?do=findComment&comment=2660977

So you're "Whist'n Past The Graveyard".

 

Quote

can't prove that as you've not demonstrated any mechanism or causation to God.

1.  God is "The CREATOR" not a Mechanism.  smh

2.  There is no "CAUSE" for "The CREATOR". :blink:   ...

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 Eternal "Always Was" Source; it's a Contingent Necessity Antecedent 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 Fallacy (Like you just did) ...it's Fallacious.

Nothing can CREATE itself.... because that would mean: It Pre-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


As for the Philosophical Naturalist/Realist (atheist), they 'believe' that the Universe Created them... OK, Who Created "YOUR" Creator --- (The Universe) ??

 

This is pretty easy to reconcile:

1.  The Universe had a Beginning.
2.  The Universe is made of Matter.
3.  Matter is The Consequent, "A Knower" is The Necessary Antecedent.
(SEE: Quantum Mechanics)
4.  Therefore:  "A CREATOR".
ps.  Philosophical Naturalism/Realism aka: atheism is PUMMELED.


Your only other choice is "Matter" Pre-Existed before it Existed then Poofed itself into Existence. (before that... it Poofed itself from Nothing into Pre-Existence.) :blink:

 

Quote

Is his view supported in world astronomy and astrophysics?

Who cares, Neither are "SCIENCE".

It's tantamount to saying: "Is his view supported in world of 2nd Grade Story Time and 13th Century Alchemy?"

 

Quote

Do you eat shellfish .. wear mixed fabrics? I suspect yes.

Really?  You think he's an Old Testament (Covenant) Jew?

That'd be a neat trick; do you know the type/style of the Time Machine he's using??  More Interestingly, how is he communicating with you here...through an Internet Cloud Worm Hole? :rolleyes:

 

Quote

I've never really heard the case of God like this.

The case for "The Creator" (Jesus Christ) has been presented to you over and over again on this forum, you just 'Whistle Past the Graveyard' sticking to your "Science Acumen"...

1.   Search a Term/Phrase in Google.
2.  "B' gAAK" PARROT 'wiki' .

 

Quote

Most others just try to pick holes in current scientific understanding and offer little else.

Yes and dark matter is created from nothing by luminescent gerbils.

 

regards

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,303
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Online

On 11/09/2017 at 8:00 AM, Kevinb said:

Are we on the same page here? Essentially I'm saying the bible asserts God created day and night on day 1 but stars and the sun on day 4. This conflicts with science. What evidence is there for a day and night days before a sun? 

Trust the bible?  Why don't I just trust the quran or the Hindu religious book or any other creation claims? I'll have a trust proportional to evidence. So how can I check the validity of the bible in this case? Ie the day and night days before a sun? Whats the mechanism to dismiss other religions claims and accept the Christian one? 

If all i have to accept the day night prior to sun is the bible that's a logical fallacy called an argument from authority. From my point of view it's worse as there is no evidence and all I'd have is faith. 

Positions of faith is why we've had so many religions in our history.

Hi Kevin,

Essentially I'm saying the bible asserts God created day and night on day 1 but stars and the sun on day 4. This conflicts with science.

I think this statement demonstrates a lack of objectivity on your behalf (which I hope you don’t take as a personal attack). In order for a claim to qualify as 'rational', it is only obligated to demonstrate logical consistency with its own premise. If you had considered the Biblical premise of a supernatural Creator of the entire universe, then it would have occurred to you that God is perfectly able to bring light into existence apart from the existence of stars. Furthermore, even today, mornings and evenings are first and foremost periods of time, which are subsequently marked by exposure to the sun (as the Bible states). So the current facts remain consistent with the Bible.

There is no “conflict with science” in this Biblical claim. The only facts available to us pertain to what the sun is doing today (and observations recorded over human history). There are no observations of the sun coming into existence; nothing to justify any legitimate scientific confidence in any claim of the sun’s origin. Now sure, given the faith presupposition that no God interacts with the natural universe, and given the uniformitarian faith presupposition (that history has always progressed in the manner we observe today), then you can take the available facts and formulate a story of how the sun might have come into existence. But you now have such faith in that story that you mischaracterise it as “science” – to justify a claim that an alternate story “conflicts with science”. You have seemingly not considered that faith plays a fundamental role in the generation of confidence in your own preferred model.

 

You have constantly complained regarding our inability to “demonstrate” God’s involvement. We cannot empirically “demonstrate” God’s involvement any more than you can show me the sun coming into existence (or a Big Bang occurring, or a cosmological inflation event, or the start of life from non-life, or the development of life from a common ancestor etc.). They are unobservable claims, and as such, it would be irrational for me to require such an observation from you. The best we can each do, in an empirical sense, is say that these stories may be true because they plausibly account for the current facts, and no current facts render them logically nonviable. [In reality, no facts can render any such claim logically nonviable – as previously discussed]. The same logical methodology is applied to investigating both stories. You prefer the secular story because it more readily conforms to your secular faith. We do exactly the same for our faith. Neither is more rationally valid (or more scientific) than the other.

 

Many here have presented facts which are interpreted to be consistent with the Biblical model. But as you commonly point out, there is always a gap between the observations, and our supernatural or historical claims – which can only be filled by faith. The exact same logical weakness applies to secular claims about the past; the same logical gap exists between the observations and the claims – meaning that confidence in these claims can only be filled by faith. In both cases, the faith is rational because the models can be supported by evidence (i.e. interpreted facts), but neither position can claim legitimate scientific confidence without appealing to fallacy (namely, Affirming the Consequent).

So the issue is not a “lack of evidence”, but that we are logically limited to only being able to observe the observable – a weakness that applies as readily to secular models as it does to the Biblical model. It therefore lacks objectivity to claim that only one model “conflicts with science”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  315
  • Content Per Day:  0.08
  • Reputation:   60
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  11/25/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/31/1959

It is all the things that will soon come to pass, prophesies. God has not days and nights and no He rest not. You may want to study the bible more and ask God about this matter. The fact of the matter is the waters rather the darkness in the heavens was created first. Under the dwelling of God was it created. Then the Spirit of God moved on the waters and they gathered together in that the dirt rather earth was formed. Then with with mass became light. But also made separated the waters also that the angels also live in another place as they are called. Tell me me when you see a 16 hour day will still say it was a 24 hour day in the beginning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  423
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   70
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/18/2017
  • Status:  Offline

 

10 hours ago, Tristen said:

I think this statement demonstrates a lack of objectivity on your behalf (which I hope you don’t take as a personal attack). In order for a claim to qualify as 'rational', it is only obligated to demonstrate logical consistency with its own premise. If you had considered the Biblical premise of a supernatural Creator of the entire universe, then it would have occurred to you that God is perfectly able to bring light into existence apart from the existence of stars. Furthermore, even today, mornings and evenings are first and foremost periods of time, which are subsequently marked by exposure to the sun (as the Bible states). So the current facts remain consistent with the Bible.

I am not saying there defo is no God btw. Objectivity... not offended. It's only logical consistency that's needed? ..not enough..you must have evidence and God causation. This isn't demonstrated. You guys are Christian... every religious belief thinks they are right and have logical consistency. The brake discussion...i could just think it's wiring...cable..disks or pads or anything else but I'll not know the reason. It might seem logically consistent I think it's a brake cable but until I can demonstrate with evidence and cause it's not rational to assert the cause. 

1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

This text sounds like day and night to me....prior to sun and stars text. 

10 hours ago, Tristen said:

there is always a gap between the observations, and our supernatural or historical claims – which can only be filled by faith. The exact same logical weakness applies to secular claims about the past; the same logical gap exists between the observations and the claims – meaning that confidence in these claims can only be filled by faith. In both cases, the faith is rational because the models can be supported by evidence (i.e. interpreted facts), but neither position can claim legitimate scientific confidence without appealing to fallacy (namely, Affirming the Consequent).

If that's your view then your rational answer should be you have no explanation... you don't know...yet you assert a God did it. In your view gaps you perceive or issues with evolution.. big bang is just more work to be done.. more to learn.. that's a starting point.. adding another layer with God claims opens a whole load more issues on top that we can't even investigate.

Evidence adds to theory...microwave background didn't have to be discovered it was a prediction that could have been falsified. If hubble had seen no red shift galaxies or opposite shift then that could have been a problem for big bang theory and could indicate a static universe.  Adding religious claims onto explanation has never helped our progress or understanding for centuries of science... in fact it's hindered it...less so now as it's forced to receed or accept. Thankfully people aren't executed for heresy in 2017 as they were..maybe Islam most covered.

I'm just not getting the rational on presupposing a God then looking at evidence. Then presupposing one in particular... based on what? Seems kinda obvious it's based on culture... where you were born and what religion you were born into... and where in humanities history till this point you happened to be born. You disregard all the others bar one...i just go one further.... until demonstration and causational links otherwise based upon where and when I happened to be born I could easily be accepting any of them.

11 hours ago, Tristen said:

It therefore lacks objectivity to claim that only one model “conflicts with science”.

If you mean I'm arguing against Christianity...i see them all the same for reasons I've said. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  423
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   70
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/18/2017
  • Status:  Offline

15 hours ago, shiloh357 said:
15 hours ago, Kevinb said:

That's why its not rational to believe until you can. This applies to other scenarios and claims.

No, it is rational believe with evidence.  If I could prove God's existence, it would no longer be a case of belief.

So it's a good thing and better to sit in a position to prefer a belief that you can't prove. Ever been in a jury? Yikes.

15 hours ago, shiloh357 said:
Quote

Do you eat shellfish .. wear mixed fabrics? I suspect yes. If yes then you pick and choose what to take on board from the bible. 

Not all commandments given in the Bible are for all people, for all time.   God gave Israel commandments, some of which were only for Israel and were not intended to be for all people.

So later on its okay to eat shellfish and wear mixed fabrics? Has it been updated to say this...where? If not they still can't do this? 

15 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Witches have no real power.  Wiccans are more of neo-pagan thing.  But there was a witch in the Bible, the Witch of Endor, who was just as fake as our witches of today.

But we're instructed to kill them right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
1 minute ago, Kevinb said:

So it's a good thing and better to sit in a position to prefer a belief that you can't prove. Ever been in a jury? Yikes.

More to the point, I cannot prove God to you.  I have sufficient evidence for me, that in my case, proves beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists.   I have a personal relationship with Him.   It is more than belief, for me.   But I have enough for me, that serves as sufficient proof.  

But I would never claim that I can prove the existence of God to the satisfaction of anyone else. 

Quote

So later on its okay to eat shellfish and wear mixed fabrics? Has it been updated to say this...where? If not they still can't do this? 

Torah observant Jews still follow those commandments, actually.   But they were not given to Christians to follow, only Israel.   It's not that they have been updated or abrogated.  It's simply the case that Christians are not oblgated to those commands, as they were never given to us to obey.

Quote

But we're instructed to kill them right?

When Israel was a theocracy, that was what they were told to do.  Christians are not commanded to do that and we don't do that.  We also don't kill homosexuals, or false prophets, or adulterers or Sabbath breakers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...