Saturday, October 17, 2009

Does Science Presuppose Atheism?


"I toyed with atheism from the age of about nine, originally because I worked out that, of all the hundreds of religions in the world, it was the sheerest accident that I was brought up Christian. They couldn’t all be right, so maybe none of them was. I later reverted to a kind of pantheism when I realised the shattering complexity and beauty of the living world. Then, around the age of 16, I first understood that Darwinism provides an explanation big enough and elegant enough to replace gods. I have been an atheist ever since." [Richard Dawkins You Ask The Questions Independent February 20 2003]

The Problem

As mentioned in the post The Rottweiler Who Lost His Teeth & His Mind, and later questioned in Is Evolution Science? It seems that modern scientific theory comes with an automatic presuppositional bias against theism in general. This bias is constructed on the chassis of methodological naturalism, which primarily deals with how one gains "trustworthy" knowledge or information from the natural or material world in which we live. This is called epistemology.

Usually, along with the proposition of methodological naturalism, comes a stance know as Metaphysical Naturalism, which focuses on what actually exists within the natural world and makes bold statements of what doesn't exist within the natural world. This is called ontology. Both of these constructs usually lend themselves to anti-super-naturalism, which is the belief that there is no outside intervention in the present day world from any source and specifically the source called God. I've discussed that topic and the flaws of that sort of reasoning in depth HERE. The backbone of all of this sort of thinking is atheism (the denial of the existence of God).

Each of these constructs are the philosophies of men seeking to affirm their place of relevance within the world. In fact what can be more appealing than believing that you (self) is actually in control of all parts of your being and that everything, no matter how complex, is controlled by processes, events and actions that have human origin and human sources. It is this sort of belief, that leads to skepticism (which can be healthy at times) but too often leads to radical metaphysical naturalism, where all things are viewed only as a discovery of life apart from God when in actuality all methodological naturalism does is measure what God has already done in history and continues to do in modern reality and real time.

Some are confused when they come to understand that the secrets of the universe are unlocked, not because God hasn't revealed himself, but because God has revealed himself and left evidence of his actions throughout all his creation. It is a lack of that understanding that modern science in the hands of metaphysical naturalists have missed.  Why? Partially because man, in his desperate attempt to find relevance in life, has excluded the very one that makes man relevant from the beginning:

Col. 2:8-10 ~ "8-Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9-For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10-And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:"

It is interesting to note that God places man at the center of his will and plans, but metaphysical naturalists place all other objects and things on the pedestal and claim that man has arrived via the sources of nature that are beneath man. The unfortunate part is that these sort of philosophies seem to proliferate among the most educated or those claiming the highest levels of academic literacy.  In fact college campuses have become a breeding ground for many of these philosophical constructs and they usually all begin when students take their first year philosophy class and are confronted with what is known as the problem of evil. This concept was taught by ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-270BCE) . The Epicurian problem of evil is usually constructed like this:

1- If a perfectly good God exists, then evil does not.
2- There is evil in the world.
3- Therefore, a perfectly good God does not exist

Paul was confronted with much of the same in his day by followers of this particular philosophy in Acts 17:16-21. So these sort of constructs are not foreign news to the bible or bible believers. One note of interest from this argument against the existence of God, and its various reconstructions and updates, is that all versions of it give way to the notion that God, if he exists, would be GOOD. This is an interesting observation and telling statement from all who would specifically deny God's existence while at the same time stating that if God exists his "goodness" is arbitrary.

One could rightfully ask the question, why is it that the most educated amongst us, are sometimes caught in this vice and trap of philosophical metaphysical naturalism? In addition to what I've stated above, what is appealing to individuals who many times have been raised in theistic homes where religion and God was the centerpiece of life and morality. More specifically how is it that Christian youth are by far falling away from the faith upon entering college and and being confronted with philosophies such as these?

Certainly not to oversimplify, but simply put, many people have never learned or simply choose not to live and walk by faith. In fact the "faith walk" has been so minimized and glossed over by the rank materialism of the modern church that it's a wonder that our youth maintain any significant values as they proceed through life. So in part the focus of life has shifted from faith to materialism:

Gal. 3:11 ~"But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith."

2 Cor. 5:7~ "(For we walk by faith, not by sight:)"

Then there has been a sub-diversion of the mind. Once a person has known Christ and then rejects him and continues to live in sin, there is a blinding and shading of the spirit from what is spiritual. Then self-will sets in to further drive the heart and lead one to understanding that they can best reckon on their own terms.

Rom. 8:5-6 ~ "5-For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6-For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace."

Very Brief History Of Modern Science:

Modern science was birthed through the Renaissance (1400-1527 AD). "Natural Philosophy" was the term most often used to describe science at one time. Later Mikolaj Kopernik (1473-1543), whose Polish name was Latinized to Nicolaus Copernicus, described what was called a "new knowledge" and eventually set forth the notion that the sun, rather than earth, was the center of the universe and that the earth, not stars, were spinning and that process was the cause of the changes of the sky and in the earth that we see.

Later, when Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) applied mathematics to motion, (which heretofore had not existed under Aristotlean  physics) and invented the telescope which was able to view objects in space in better detail, science would take it's greatest leap ever in history. Galilei's studies and inventions affirmed many of Copernicus's theories. In church terms Galilei became one of the first "evangelists" of modernistic scientific theory by presenting his evidences to the church under his former friend, Pope Urban VIII (1623-1644). Unfortunately for Galilei he would later be jailed for life (house arrest) due to a character misinterpretation by the Pope of a piece of Galilei's work. Although Galilei didn't yield unto death or the shedding of blood,  modern science was born and there was no turning back.

Since that time there have been all kinds of scientists in all fields of science who have approached the subject from various points of view. Some have theistic and atheistic philosophical control beliefs and views. What is interesting to note is that peer pressure is highly at work within the field and study of science, even if that peer pressure endangers the actual exchange of good right and wholesome information. In fact within modern fields of science godlessness is a vocal position and rewarded and praised as being rational and the right way to think.

The Strange World Of Naturalistic Philosophy

In this world babies have no rights because they are consciously unaware of their existence, so abortions are OK. In this world animals are given and extended what was normally considered to be human rights, and afforded protections under the law that send people to prison. In this world sexual immorality and homosexuality in particular is placed on the same level as heterosexuality and extended a platform of "civil rights". The question is why can't other deviant sexual behaviors be extended or afforded the same rights? It's because in this world and through the metaphysically naturalist system, morality is established by the culture and is relative to the feelings of the one carrying out that morality.

Rise Of Godless Philosophy Or Merely A Reversion To Old Sophisticated Excuses?

Although current studies show that about 38% of scientists in the natural sciences are atheistic in their philosophical worldview as compared to 31% of scientists in the "soft' sciences. These percentages are yet high as compared to the population of the United States which is said to have a 90%  theistic philosophical worldview. In the same study there was discussion over whether many of the scientist who denied theism di so because they really denied theism. In other words, it was clear that those who lived in what the church would consider to be sin, were the highest group claiming atheism or a non-theistic worldview.

As it pertains to the traditional scientific thinkers such as Dawkins, many see science at home in a world where no gods are included. They believe or at least set forth principles based on their assumed metaphysical naturalistic premise and hogtie those principles to reason (logic), as if to say that belief in science is the only "reasonable" way to understand and view the world and occurrences within the world and gain knowledge of the world itself. Therefore the result is an ugly three headed monster of natural and metaphysical philosophy tied together under the false interpretation of reason planted in the shallow ground of methodological naturalism and presented as science.

A Unique Relationship

Not all proponents of materialism deny the premise that philosophy of science is different from methodological science. There is a close but vastly different and interesting relationship. Eugenie Scott, the Executive Director of the National Center For Science Education (NCSE), who describes herself as atheist but does not discount the importance of spirituality, sets forth the fine line regarding this relationship as follows:


"I have argued that a clear distinction must be drawn between science as a way of knowing about the natural world and science as a foundation for philosophical views. One should be taught to our children in school, and the other can optionally be taught to our children at home. Once this view is explained, I have found far more support than disagreement among my university colleagues. Even someone who may disagree with my logic or understanding of philosophy of science often understands the strategic reasons for separating methodological from philosophical materialism -- if we want more Americans to understand evolution."Science and Religion, Methodology and Humanism May 1998

What she alludes to without saying it is that the philosophical materialism of science is the religious aspect of it and that zeal is carried by its most famed evangelists especially when it pertains to evolutionary theory. This is really quite telling because most scientists and those targeted by the new "good ole boy system" of scientific  affirmation, and what almost appears to be social club acceptance, do not distinguish the difference between the philosophical materialistic aspects of science and the purely methodological naturalistic aspect of science. In most venues these vastly different purposes and aspects of science are said, taught, and presented to be one in the same.

The same can be said true of evolutionary philosophy and the theory of evolution. It is often taught and presented with a metaphysical naturalistic bias that excludes the possibility of God replacing him with random processes over time and a purely synergistic relationship between matter and energy.

Do Scientists Need A Rescue?

Certainly the scientist who is often stymied by the vocal metaphysical naturalist minority are in need to be rescued from the radical right and left wing atheism which has crept into moder scientific method. Methodological naturalism has no necessity to give way to atheism or metaphysical naturalism, however this is the current condition and confusion of modern scientific method. Science, which is a valuable and needed tool in ordinary life should not be used as a tool to explain away God as in and of itself is not equipped to do so without being a philosophical construct. Science should remain neutral at best and worst even within a Christian or theistic environment. Modern scientific methods has lost it's purpose and feels that it should be rewarded for pointing to blind processes, random chance and time as justifiable answers to important life questions and universal concerns such as those aimed at by neo-Darwinian evolutionary science.

Unfortunately science has become the tool used to religiously and systematically recreate the mindset and shape it into a product of the culture, modern popularity and fads unbecoming of true scientific discovery. Remember the goal of humanism was and is to replace the city of God with the city of man. Gaining control of the educational process and dealing with origins is essential to that plan and the method that philosophical naturalism has taken and continues to take with the approval of the state which is ill equipped to discern and recognize the difference. The only way to make the state realize a religious construct and concept is to  wrap it up in a bible, prayer or other biblical literature. Believe that if God or God concepts were taught in the classroom as we found in Dover, PA., there would be no secrets nor silence and there would be resulting actions immediately. The critic says that ID was kicked out of Dover because it wasn't science, but I pose that ID was kicked out of Dover because it wasn't atheism taught under the guise of philosophical methodological naturalism.  

Conclusion:

One thing is sure, God doesn't need science to validate or approve of his intervention int the modern world. His power supersedes scientific laws that we feel define our world. In fact his law shapes our world in ways that are beyond scientific ability to comprehend. He is the only thing that has been here always and will be here always even after all scientific knowledge has been made illogical and irrelevant. However, in the meantime, our children and families must be taught the rudiments of science and the benefits that are currently gained through scientific understanding in the world in which we live.

I encourage Christians within the scientific community to take a stand, for this may be the whole purpose of your life and the opportunity that God has designed for you to make a difference. As a scientific community, I would encourage you to revert back to the time when science was understood as unlocking and discovering what God had already and historically done in this world.

With that said, it is incredulous to believe that complex process simply originate from mindless repetition of incomplexity that arose from nothing, for no purpose and for no reason. It is further more than a stretch of the imagination to believe that whatever is there somehow expands over time like an overweight individual in spandex until it creates something more complex than the information that it had to work with in the beginning. Even if that were the case, that, in and of itself would be miraculous because we know know by studying chemical biology that it is much easier to understand complex functions in the light of the transfer of complex information. In other words, nothing "just happens" as evolutionary biologist would like us to believe. eg: For mankind it is easier to measure what we can see, but measuring what is seen is not always the correct measure of the truth.

Blessed!

126 comments:

  1. It is my prayer that the elect will be awakened by the quickening power of the Holy Ghost, because now no one can deny that Christ is his way back to earth.

    Paul said "8For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

    19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

    20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" Romans 1:18-20 (King James Version)

    As human beings we are without excuse. It is in God that we move and have our being. God created all things, so therefore we are without excuse. Everything you see before you, God made it possible, so we are required to give God praise. We do not have any authority on our own. So, therefore you cannot have any doubt in God's existence and power.

    No matter what the theory, if it displaces God as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, then it can be grouped together under the anti-christ and his agenda

    ReplyDelete
  2. From Pastor Harvey's article: "Remember the goal of humanism was and is to replace the city of God with the city of man."

    Humanism has always seemed like such a misnomer to me because it's so much less human. We are reduced to a sack of meat with some electricity going on in our heads - is it any wonder that in the group think, life is becoming less and less precious.

    Let's face it - the intimidation college kids face from their professors can only go so far. I totally agree with "Servant OTMH" that posted above me that they KNOW, and are without excuse. But yet, I've never read a testimony from an atheist about why they lost their faith that didn't sound like a cover-up for something they weren't saying.

    I've heard many times a christian tell an atheist that they just want to live in sin, and more the most part, my opinion was similar - they didn't want to be accountable. But the more testimonies I hear, the more I see a rejection of religion, with God only being the a part of that religion. With dyed in the wool atheists, it's a family member that had the religion.

    With my reasoning that evolution is a religion, and that we were all made to worship (something), they have made their choice.

    But is this not an indictment on religion? I discovered today in Matthew 24:12 when Jesus was speaking of the signs of the end days, that "because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold", in this case "love" is "agape". That's us!

    I don't know...I do know that the college challenge syllogism was tainted with the presupposition that God created evil. Evil is not a thing. I never cared for circular thinking.
    All dogs have tails.
    My cat has a tail.
    Therefore my cat is a dog.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Servant,

    You said:"No matter what the theory, if it displaces God as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, then it can be grouped together under the anti-christ and his agenda"

    Absolutely right! This is an effort of the emeny of our soul to keep these individuals bound with unbelief so that they won't know just that.

    What is really telling is that many of them fervently hail their figures such as dawkins as if he's leading them to a grand promise. He's leading them striaght to the grave. Any worldview that says, there is no hope beyond the grave is destined to failure, not ONLY because it's not true, but also because it's simply hopeless and futile.

    I heard one of their advocates say during a debate, "when I die I simply rot in the grave and it's that's it"

    This hoplessness is what our children are confronted with in the regular science classroom. Not that learning science is bad, because it's not, but learning the humanistic and atheistic philosophy taught along with modern science should also be against the law.

    I can learn science without hearing their radical and antiGod worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Laura,

    You said:"We are reduced to a sack of meat with some electricity going on in our heads - is it any wonder that in the group think, life is becoming less and less precious"

    And from what both of us saw in the other evolution posts this is an accurate assessment of what humanism teaches. As I told Servant, how do they expect something that futile to grow? But yet they do have that faith don't they?

    You said:don't know...I do know that the college challenge syllogism was tainted with the presupposition that God created evil. Evil is not a thing. I never cared for circular thinking.
    All dogs have tails.
    My cat has a tail.
    Therefore my cat is a dog.


    LOL- That's atheism in a nutshell! A lot of seemingly good people caught in a "funk" of the mind...what we call opression of the spirit.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Post 1

    Well this here kiwi human sack of meat with some electricity going on in his head,sure know a lot about (how precious life really is).

    And after some of what this sack of meat here experienced with supposed caring folks of faith,its sure sickening to hear people including a pastor a supposed man of god being all high and almighty of himself while runing those who happen to disbelieve down.

    Talk about the fact that QUOTE: "that they KNOW, and are without excuse"

    Laura say..."But yet, I've never read a testimony from an atheist about why they lost their faith that didn't sound like a cover-up for something they weren't saying."

    You got my blood boiling a little,and it actually take a lot to boil my blood.But your self rightious attitude and "oh how wonderful am i because i warmed a few pews" manner made me decide im going to relay to you reasons why this kiwi no longer believes or goes to church and i got to say both you and the pastor just confirmed why there is very little reason to bother doing so.Because if you led by any supposed holy spirit, he a dead as a door nail one for sure!! because you so blinded you got no real insight in the depth of matters at all.

    You say...."I've heard many times a christian tell an atheist that they just want to live in sin, and more the most part, my opinion was similar - they didn't want to be accountable. But the more testimonies I hear, the more I see a rejection of religion, with God only being the a part of that religion. With dyed in the wool atheists, it's a family member that had the religion."

    Well how about this non believer tell you its high time you really started to think a little instead of just sitting there thinking how your own shit dont stink.

    My story is.I was born to supposed christians not a whole lot more (ignorant thoughtless and nasty) than you all.They split my entire family.They split many many other families too.They divided husband from wife and parent from children.They hurt so very MANY!!! so bad that a LARGE NUMBER even COMMITTED SUICIDE.They covered up sexual abuse and all manner of other nastinesses and still do.Many are having to drag them into courts even at the present moment because they just dont give a damm,not a whole lot unlike you lot it now seems.

    You say..."With my reasoning that evolution is a religion, and that we were all made to worship (something), they have made their choice."

    Your reasoning is reasoning out of false pride and complete utter stupidity.

    And i made my choice alright and you and Harvey just proved what a good choice i made.You proved the holy spirit is complete crap,because you all more blind than those not claiming to have one.I hope your god is pleased if in fact he really exists.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Post 2

    You say...."But is this not an indictment on religion? I discovered today in Matthew 24:12 when Jesus was speaking of the signs of the end days, that "because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold", in this case "love" is "agape". That's us!"

    Talk about sign of today....how waxy and cold is the reality of your love?.

    Harvey say...."As I told Servant, how do they expect something that futile to grow? But yet they do have that faith don't they?"

    Futile?? ...Want to talk a little about whats actually a bit futile....Want to talk about where else you think i should supposedly have my faith when even pastors are blind as bats...

    You say...."LOL- That's atheism in a nutshell! A lot of seemingly good people caught in a "funk" of the mind...what we call opression of the spirit."

    Oh you can laugh and think you very very smart my friend harvey it dont worry me to much....While you laughing away folk looking on specially the youth seeing how self rightous you are...Seeing how thoughtless you are ...Seeing you guided by no holy spirit at all....understanding more that maybe your situation just about a job.

    L.o.L ...and you poking bones at certain folks about who might be caught in a "funk" of the mind.

    Man ...L.o.L!! ...you pretty "funky" too my friend ...infact you pretty overly funked up at the moment ...You so funked up you a bit lost even.

    LOL- That's FAITH in a nutshell! ...what we call without any real (decent evidence) for (proof) of the HOLY SPIRIT WHATSOEVER AT ALL.

    Sorry but i dont take all too kindly to people wrongfully dissing my reasons for no longer seeing good reason to have any faith.I extremely dislike and even absolutely hate being inferred to as being very dishonest when im totally not.Especially from so called supposed kind understanding folks of gods and faith.

    I have tried to carry on being decent with you faithful folk, when many others elsewhere suggest they cant really see any good reasons why we should continue to even bother.

    And you know what after reading this thoughtless ignorant garbage,im now starting to think maybe these people are actually very right.

    Signed very very angry sack of meat.Who will never never forget those friends of his who suffered etc and yes even died at the hands of scummy bullshiting folks of faith.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gandy said "Sorry but i dont take all too kindly to people wrongfully dissing my reasons for no longer seeing good reason to have any faith."

    Gandy, take a deep breath and re-read what I wrote. You and I are in agreement, you silly goose!

    What I hear from atheists who have lost their faith (or never had it) are logical arguments like on the previous threads. It takes a lot of digging and caring sometimes to get to the real reason, (or sometimes someone gets mad and blurts it out), but it seems to me it's always the same thing - religion in the family or religion of a relative that is so loveless that all that person wants to do is get away from it.

    (((Gandy)))

    ReplyDelete
  8. http://www.baptiststandard.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10210&Itemid=53

    ReplyDelete
  9. And i made my choice alright and you and Harvey just proved what a good choice i made.

    Gandy, I have never disparaged anyone's personal beliefs. I don't have to agree with your beliefs to be respectful of your beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Laura,

    "What I hear from atheists....are logical arguments....."

    Can you not see the irony in that comment?

    You are in good company though:

    "Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason."---- Martin Luther

    Some people are just not going to go that route.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Laura,

    "With my reasoning that evolution is a religion, and that we were all made to worship (something), they have made their choice."

    You seem to equate evolution and atheism.
    Have you ever heard of Francis Collins? He is the scientist who unravelled the myseries of DNA. He is a devout Christian. He trusts in the veracity of the Theory of Evolution.
    Your claim that evolution is a religion is false.
    We have one hundred fifty years of scientific inquiry showing the validity of evolution and there are no ther competing theories.

    I grew up in a wonderful Christian home and I have no problem with any Christian, or member of my family.

    Although I do now trust in the veracity of the ToE, I became an atheist/ agnostic long before I actually studied the ToE.

    So at least I am an exception to you "rule" of why you think people become atheists.

    Generalizing on why people are atheists is absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Gandolf,

    You have laid out some very salient points. I liked the what you wrote.

    But....this blog is operated by a person that is offended, unnerved even, by offensive and strong language. That is his prerogitive.
    If he bans you, everybody loses.

    Here is my rationale.
    I don't know exactly why, but ever since I was a little kid in Bible class, I struggled with the "Golden Rule." By then I knew the "Golden Rule" didn't work, in reality.
    The "Golden Rule" states,
    Treat each other as you like to be treated."

    The question that rationally follows is, "What if that person doesn't like being treated the way I like to be treated?"



    I.e., I like being treated like the old salty curmudgen that I am, but I understand that Laura or the good Supt. don't want to be treated that way, so I devised a new rule, that I call the Platinum Rule, which states, "If you want to try to relate, and find common ground with people, treat them as they want to be treated."

    You harvest more positive relationships this way. I will willingly admit that I also get frustrated.



    You've got some great logical arguments you present. Thanks,
    Froggie

    ReplyDelete
  13. post 1

    Laura you almost sound exactly like the folks of faith i know very well.Who really still have great faith they never caused anyone so much pain that lots suicided.According to them oh no we never split families "it was sin that split families"not them even though they actually did in reality.And even though they know they were willingly involved in sex abuse cover ups,they put their heads in the sand faithfully hoping it will one day just go away.Not for one moment being willing for to long to honestly wonder if just maybe the holy men were not guided by any holy spirit at ALL after all.No they just dont want to even think it might be true...Who care about who got hurt or might still be getting hurt! ...Long as i still got my faith that all that matter

    Laura you say..."Gandy, I have never disparaged anyone's personal beliefs. I don't have to agree with your beliefs to be respectful of your beliefs."

    Yet you said just before...."Humanism has always seemed like such a misnomer to me because it's so much less human. We are reduced to a sack of meat with some electricity going on in our heads - is it any wonder that in the group think, life is becoming less and less precious."

    You suggesting realistically im less human and a sack of meat...You telling me my disbelief of gods makes me find life less precious when it actually makes me realize more just how very very precious life really is.So much so that i now know most of what i could have had with life, has been wasted by folks of faith.

    You say you not being disparaging,well if you not depreciate; belittle bring reproach or discredit upon; lower the estimation of me with what you seem to think above, then by jingo`s what is it then.

    I have valid reason why i see no evidence for faith and gods.I see no evidence of gods in this world.I see no evidence of gods guidence in people such as yourself Harvey and even Servant of the Most High God who reckons ...."No matter what the theory, if it displaces God as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, then it can be grouped together under the anti-christ and his agenda"

    He kinda acusing me of following some anti-christ.And im thinking hold on if there really was some god surely we should think maybe this almight god might have had a word in this fellows ear...And told him look man not everyone follow a Anti-christ just because he dont believe...Many of you folks of faith show them blatantly there seems no good reason to believe.Hey servant you gotta admit i me god,dont really show myself in this world anywhere in reality...They dont want to follow some anti christ but they not going to follow what seems obviously false either.

    But god dont have a word in servants ear ,because god dont exist.

    ReplyDelete
  14. post 2

    Laura you said..."I've never read a testimony from an atheist about why they lost their faith that didn't sound like a cover-up for something they weren't saying."

    Im not covering up anything.Im not wanting to disbelieve so i can fill my life with some dark orgy of sex or things that you would call evil...I live a very basic life ...I dont steal ...I dont beat people....I have love for my neighbour still.

    Why do you suggest and harv seem to agree that im some type of cover up who dont like gods...If Suggesting its a cover isnt just a bit disparaging,then im wonder how is it to be seen as really giving us any credit? ....Because i cant help thinking im due aleast a (little) credit.

    Laura and Harv and Servant,im willing to admit i let myself get a little overun by emotion here.Im not going to try to excuse it,but i just going to say this way people of faith keep trying to suggest we non believers is a type of anti-christ followers is (most often) just bullc**p.You say it because it makes you feel better about yourselves and your faith beliefs.Its like a meme of faith that you hope if you can transmit by repetition enough times will hopefully just become HONESTLY true.

    And when many people i know and once knew have been hurt bad and yes even died,i happen to get very angry when i know its still happening out there to others because of false faith beliefs.My friends blood scream at me from the grave after having had their lives wasted ..."Gandolf, please tell these pricks loud and clear for us because we no longer can!!"

    And i did wait.I waited to see if the pastor Harvey was guided by the holy spirit and going to be any different.Seems he think humanism is futile and a joke. Seem he agree and think it funny and suggest we the ones with a problem of opression of the spirit.

    But ahhh dont worry i had a sleep on it,im not so angry anymore.I been living with this curse of stinking faith now for most of my life,and i know hating deluded folks of faith not going to give me another chance at life without a faith curse.I have long prepared myself to die with a certain sadness in my heart,and i just do what i can to help in hope that things might change for the future so others dont need to go through the same.

    It just hurt a little when folks suggest i might follow some superstitious being known as the anti-christ.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi Froggie thanks a lot, and i agree the golden rule dont always work.

    Thats the thing i think,we have learned many good things from the past but when we get stuck on thinking everything we learned must have been absolutely right....That to me in my opinion spells out a great receipe for disasters to happen and keep happening.

    To survive we need to be ready to change ..Be ready to accept we make mistakes and dont get everything always right.

    P.S Froggie i left a note on your blog,i really enjoyed seeing the photo`s of the barbeque with family and friends ..Amongst the beautiful natural surroundings...I love seeing photos of these things because i think family and community spirit is something that is a very good thing,something that has sadly been lost a lot...And that detrimental effects we all suffer from, when folks become so far removed from each other they just dont care enough anymore and rob steal bash rape etc and even kill.So split and divided we become,and all to often with faiths at the helm steering society towards the biggoted type thinking of oh im better than somebody else.

    Cheers Froggie,and i hope you all have a wonderful day.That includes Harvey Laura and Servant and all family and friends.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Gandy,

    Hope you're doing well. You said a few things I'll have to address also because they come directly from the halls of spiritual bondage.

    You said:You got my blood boiling a little,and it actually take a lot to boil my blood.

    That's what TRUTH usually does especially when one is living contrary to it. So to make your blood boil is exactly what would be expected on hearty felt points sucha as the ones Laura was making.

    You malso said:But your self rightious attitude and "oh how wonderful am i because i warmed a few pews" manner made me decide im going to relay to you reasons why this kiwi no longer believes or goes to church and i got to say both you and the pastor just confirmed why there is very little reason to bother doing so.

    Laura has NEVER approached anyone in that manner and IF she did she would be able to make a good case. There SHOULD be a difference between the righteous and sinners and God honors righteousness of his people so she has NOTHING to be ashamed of...In fact NOBODY saved has anything to be ashamed of when communicating to unbelievers such as your self when the communication is accurate...in addition her statements were'nt directly to you, but mine are...so you can relax and know that I'm speaking to you and other unbelievers who may wish to be vicariously represented by you.

    You also said:Because if you led by any supposed holy spirit, he a dead as a door nail one for sure!! because you so blinded you got no real insight in the depth of matters at all.

    Now that peaked my interest to get engaged in this one, because the one who is DEAD in their trespasses and sins is YOU. In fact you have no spiritual insight except for what you perceive by grace. First the Holy Spirit is in no way dead and ignoramouses who have stated such in history have died and gone on to meet him. The Holy Spirit is a "revealer" and it's similar to this, throw a ston and the "dog" it hits will yelp...I'm NOT calling you a dog bu Laura must have HIT your heart by the Holy Ghost leading and KUDOS to her for that...

    Sinners hang on to sin for their own reasons of sin. This is ione thing that is consistent and laura is on point. Sinners want to believe what they want to believe because it pacifies somehing about their character or nature. So what is it Gandy that you love about sin so much until you're challenged with the mere proposition that you too worship somehing even if that something is flesh and self-will?

    Now we're getting somewhere.

    So far as your history is concerned, replace religion and the religious aspects of things with ANYTHING YOU WISH. What you experienced is common to mankind. That garbage you experienced is what godless hearts do. That's what total depravity is about. Unfortunately you came up in an environment that USED Christianity as a cover for unrighteousness and proliferation of sin...they used mind control etc. These things were around and practiced OUTSIDE of Christian cirlces all day long...so CHRISTIANITY is not the problem with what you experienced, the CONDEMNED hearts of the people who promoted and bought into those lies are...

    Why blame something for what it doesn't produce? Christianity doesn't produce the criooks and ungodly actions that you experienced...CHARLATANISM and apostasy does however.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Pt. 2

    Gandy

    Blame the unrighteous, and the pretenders who used religion as a tool...So your point thogh heartfelt isn't against God or Christianity as much as it is against those with whom you were raised. Ity sounded like a non-Christian cult...FYI~ a cult can quote the bible all day long and say that they love Jesus all they want, but when they don't follow his teachings or submit themselves at the cross they are still NONCHRISTIAN.

    Stop confusing the righteous with the unrighteouss. Would you like it if I confused you with Stahlin or Mao Se Tung? They were horrible atheists too and destroyed more than a fair share of families lives and countries...

    Stop crediting lies and apostate behavior with real Christianity. If you don't know admit such and learn it again, the RIGHT way.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Post3

    Gandy,

    and yes you're right you're going to REFRAIN from obscenity on this borad or I will DELETE you posts...So what, you like to disrespect people in their environments? Maybe that's teh atheist way of venting or doing things but that's not our way neither will I let it become that way...Got me soilder?

    Back to your rantings:

    You said of my statements to Servant:Futile?? ...Want to talk a little about whats actually a bit futile....Want to talk about where else you think i should supposedly have my faith when even pastors are blind as bats...

    First of all that's not retort to my statements. Atheism is a FUTILE proposition. In fact it's the most STUPID proposition ever in history. To be an atheist one must claim all knowledge. Secondly IF one only claims the adequacy of scientific method to determine facts, then one also ELIMINATES and OVERLOOKS all testimony and experience that is entered taht says that God does exist. Therefore the STUPIDITY of atheism and the creation of the ultimate ANTI-CHRIST faith....That's why i call atheists who love to spread their dogmas anti-Christ advocates.

    So this is an ode to the Anti-Christ advocate who promotes the most unreasonable and biased FAITH statements in the world.

    You said:"While you laughing away folk looking on specially the youth seeing how self rightous you are

    I think the YOUTH are seeing the actual difference between the Kingdom of Light and the kingdom of darkness. That's not a self righteous statement, it's a fact.

    You said:...Seeing how thoughtless you are ...Seeing you guided by no holy spirit at all....understanding more that maybe your situation just about a job.

    For one to make the proposition that you set forth, it's not based on being overtaken in tioral and tribulation. In other words you are where you are spiritually by CHOICE. Why should I have mercy on your CHOICE. Are you in need of pity from me? I don't think so nor have I ever handled you like that. Why should I shade the truth from a worldview that is both anthitetical to Christianity and in my opinon contrary to society in general and hurtful to hopes, dreams, futuresa nd flatly tells lies about the meaning of life? That neither deserves nor requires the "kit gloves' that you would like applied.

    ReplyDelete
  19. post 4

    Gandy,

    You said of Laura:"You suggesting realistically im less human and a sack of meat...

    NO, don't lie and try to reflect your stale position back on Christians. I won't let you do it...YOUR BELIEF claims that you (and me) are products of primordial slime....YOU BELIEF claims that all that is necessary is energy and thus there is life....YOUR BELIEF, claims that all that we see merely only means anything in this shortest of contexts called life....no purpose, no future beyond death and what purpose we have is created on our own by our selves...THAT'S YOUR GARBAGE not Laura's...She labeled it what it is...simply MEAT, no spirit no what we call life...YOU exclude those facts and elements of your being NOT her and certainly not us...AS I stated whay get mad for her telling the TRUTH?

    Can you live in the truth? or is your version of truth so relativistic until it changes everyday based on your feeling an emotion? Laura has NOTHING to apologize for neither does any Christian unless all you want is sympathy...if so we have that, but certainly not because you cruy about an accurate representation of your FAITH.

    You said:"I have valid reason why i see no evidence for faith and gods.I see no evidence of gods in this world."

    So what? We have VALID evidences and EXPEREINCES why we belive in God. So what is more credible? You lack of evidences or the evidences we have? Why is YOUR position more important than mine? Why should I, we or any Christian simply yield to your statements that you don't believe as if it's some death sentence to Christianity?

    We don't cower to unbelief nor unbelievers...We know the God that we serve and we further know his abilities. The thing about it is that God is EVERYWHERE you can be and will go in life...even if you don't want him there...He's yet there and you can't turn him off.

    You said:"He kinda acusing me of following some anti-christ."

    Now WHY should that offend you? Please explain that in the least bit so that I can have a good understanding. Why does being associated with being an Anti-Christ advocate offend an atheist? Please address that FIRST and foremost for me and the other Christians reading.

    Yiou said:"Many of you folks of faith show them blatantly there seems no good reason to believe.

    We folks of faith have PLENTY of good reason to believe... you simply answer why you don't, at least when you can come out from under the "funk" of what others did around you...why don't YOU believe?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Harvey wrote: It seems that modern scientific theory comes with an automatic presuppositional bias against theism in general.

    Harvey,

    Science is interested in performing rigorous research and experiments to reach higher levels of certainty regarding how the universe works. If God intentionally acts in ways to hide himself from us, then it is God who has excluded himself from scientific study.

    Furthermore, I'd guess that you'd think that a scientific and methodological study of God is wrong and would be fruitless. In fact, many theists use this sort of claim to explain why studies on the "healing properties" of prayer have yet to show any advantages over those who do not receive prayer.

    Both of these constructs usually lend themselves to anti-super-naturalism, which is the belief that there is no outside intervention in the present day world from any source and specifically the source called God.

    If we're going to understand the various kinds of phenomenon we observe, we have to run experiments to determine how they behave.

    Let's take the observation that things fall to the ground when you drop them. When we study gravity, we find it behaves in a way that is very predictable. In fact, it's so predictable that we've created a theory which we use in a wide range of applications. For example, when we launch the space shuttle it's weight varies depending on the amount of cargo it happens to be carrying for each mission. We us the theory of gravity to calculate exactly how much thrust is necessary to escape the earth's gravitational pull. Without this theory, we'd have to guess each time and just hope we got it right.

    While we don't know exactly how the phenomenon of gravity works, we've taken what we do know, based on a large number of observations, created a theory that explains them and applied them in a highly practical manner. This is science.

    Now, if you suggested that gravity is supernatural, then what exactly would this add to what we know about gravity? Would this mean that gravity could not be predicted? Would gravity refuse to be studied? If this were the case, then we could not utilize or counteract gravity. Things that fell down today might fall up tomorrow.

    So, I'd ask you to clarify what you mean by Supernatural, what implications it has and how classifing things as supernatural is beneficial.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Post 5

    Gandy,

    You said: Im not covering up anything.Im not wanting to disbelieve so i can fill my life with some dark orgy of sex or things that you would call evil...I live a very basic life ...I dont steal ...I dont beat people....I have love for my neighbour still."

    Those things are good Gandy, and I know and believe as much about you, but that still doesn't quite get to the seat of the issue does it? A person can do good all of their life and yet go to HELL. Why, not because it's inevitable, but because they chose to reject teh same God that gives them life and follow HIS purpose for life...Yes it may be tight, we all must walk it though and none, not even you, has a free pass.

    You said:"Laura and Harv and Servant,im willing to admit i let myself get a little overun by emotion here."

    Do ya think?

    You said:"Im not going to try to excuse it,but i just going to say this way people of faith keep trying to suggest we non believers is a type of anti-christ followers is (most often) just bullc**p."

    I honestly remember the first day someone called me black Gandy. I was so mad. I was young and I said to myself, "why they call me a little black kid?" Then as I learned I understood what they were talking about. now I can't help but being black and I'm proud of it, but you can help from being an anti-Christ advocate. That is if you can define it or really come to reconcile what it means. Why is that offensive to any who don't love the Christ?

    You said:And when many people i know and once knew have been hurt bad and yes even died,i happen to get very angry when i know its still happening out there to others because of false faith beliefs."

    And that's the appeal of you being here because you have an honmest sincerity about helping others and that's good, however, as I stated, the tragedy of the world is not by a long shot limited to persons and nations of "faith" why are we not son insenced by what's happening in Bosnia, Russia and other communist countries right now?

    You said:"And i did wait.I waited to see if the pastor Harvey was guided by the holy spirit and going to be any different.Seems he think humanism is futile and a joke."

    The WORLD is full of truibulation your's is not less and cetainly no greater. Trying to fix the ills of man with mere humanistic effort is like trying to patch Hoover Dam with a baindaid...It just wont work. Humanism does not change the hearts of men and women, only God can do that...dopn't blame God for trying, blame thiose who choose to live selfishly, theists and atheists alike for being so self absorbed that they can't help humanity in any way.

    You said:"It just hurt a little when folks suggest i might follow some superstitious being known as the anti-christ."

    Like I said, what does that mean to you? and why should it hurt?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Each of these constructs are the philosophies of men seeking to affirm their place of relevance within the world.

    Regardless of how we got here, we exist in a physical world which reacts in direct response to our actions. Furthermore, It's clear that human beings are very relevant in the world as we made dramatic changes, for better and worse, in the last 300 years. Our impact is unmistakable. Are you suggesting that we pretend we're not relevant?

    In fact, I think it's our moral duty to gain a better understanding of the effects our actions have on ourselves, others and our environment.

    In fact what can be more appealing than believing that you (self) is actually in control of all parts of your being and that everything, no matter how complex, is controlled by processes, events and actions that have human origin and human sources.

    First, I'm sure that many people who are dying of terminal illnesses do not think think they are in control of "all parts of their being." If they were, they could simply will themselves back to health. Nor is gravity of "human origin and human sources."

    Second, should the world not be controlled by processes, it would be quite a unappealing place. You'd have no idea how long to cook your food as heat might have a different effect each time. Once prepared, the same food might taste different today than it did yesterday. Nor would you know if it would provide nutrition or act as a poison. The same amount of fuel, when combined with a spark in a car's engine, might cause it to explode or not provide any power at all. The sun's gravitational pull, which currently keeps us in the goldielocks zone, might pull us too close or relax it's grip to the point where our planet is too hot or two cold to support human life. I could go on, but I think you get the point.

    A world without processes would be a rather frighting, don't you think?

    Some are confused when they come to understand that the secrets of the universe are unlocked, not because God hasn't revealed himself, but because God has revealed himself and left evidence of his actions throughout all his creation.

    Again, if God acted in a way that allowed him to be studied in a methodological way, his existence and involvement would be a scientific fact. But, this is clearly not the case. If he did, then faith would not be required, which is supposedly one of the key elements of Christianity. Many Christians think that God would violate our free will if he revealed himself in a concrete way.

    It is a lack of that understanding that modern science in the hands of metaphysical naturalists have missed.

    We did not miss it. It's not there. Please see above.

    Why? Partially because man, in his desperate attempt to find relevance in life, has excluded the very one that makes man relevant from the beginning:

    Or it could be that ancient humans, in a desperate attempt to understand themselves and the universe around them, created fictional characters which supposedly existed from the begining of time.

    It is interesting to note that God places man at the center of his will and plans, but metaphysical naturalists place all other objects and things on the pedestal and claim that man has arrived via the sources of nature that are beneath man.

    Metaphysical naturalists operate under the idea that everything is natural. As such, I do not put things on pedestals in the way you do with God. Nor do I think that man arrived via a source that is beneath human beings. It's an even playing field. Instead, these are conclusions you've reached on your own, apparently based on the your religious view that things are above nature.

    While I won't address each one in detail, you make a number of supposed connections in your post that are also misrepresentations.

    ReplyDelete
  23. More specifically how is it that Christian youth are by far falling away from the faith upon entering college and and being confronted with philosophies such as these?

    The problem with this argument is that college students have been "confronted" with these philosophies for decades. This is nothing new. So, there must be some other reason why college students are loosing their faith.

    What is interesting to note is that peer pressure is highly at work within the field and study of science, even if that peer pressure endangers the actual exchange of good right and wholesome information.

    Here, you're equating peer pressure, which exists in all social venues, with peer review, which focuses on the methods and conditions in which science operates. Were experiments run under the right conditions? Can they be reproduced?

    Should this process not exist, anyone could perform any kind of test or research and call it science. Astrology would likely still be around and we've have alien intervention theory mixed in which evolution. Do you think these astrology or alien intervention theories are science?

    There is no unwholesome information there is information that is true or false. There are only poorly run experiments and unsupported conclusions. Obviously, there are concerns when it comes to how we gather information, such as using human beings as test subjects, but the facts we learn are not good or bad. They are facts. To think otherwise is an attempt to hijack science for your own personal goals.

    In other words, it was clear that those who lived in what the church would consider to be sin, were the highest group claiming atheism or a non-theistic worldview.

    As you yourself pointed out, Galileo lived in what the church consider to be a sin when he suggested that the earth orbited the sun. And he was falsely punished for presenting the facts.

    In fact within modern fields of science godlessness is a vocal position and rewarded and praised as being rational and the right way to think.

    Saying, "God did it" is not science. It tells us nothing about how a phenomenon actually works.

    Example, we used to think God opened a woman's womb. Why is this? Because couples did not always conceive and the process occurred internally, which we could not observe. However, eventually, we realized that conception was a complex process that depended on a large number of factors. This gave the illusion that God was "opening" a woman's womb.

    It was only by understanding how the process of conception works that could we significantly increase the odds that a couple would conceive. Had we chosen to say "God did it", conception would have continued to be a "black box."

    ReplyDelete
  24. Even if that were the case, that in and of itself would be miraculous because we know know by studying chemical biology that it is much easier to understand complex functions in the light of the transfer of complex information.

    Evolution is a theory that explains a series of facts. For example, if there is no process, then why do we not see new species appearing one every month or two? Why doesn't a human couple who is trying to have a child give birth to a new species? This is because speciation occurs as part of a process. If it were not a process, then we couldn't predict when new species would appear or how.

    For example, Intelligent design posits that…

    Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact - fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, etc.

    I'm not sure if you realize this, but this statement refers to the appearance of species when they are found in the fossil record. This means that, over a period of millions of years, species were abruptly appearing where none had existed before. To be crystal clear, ID does not think all forms of life were created at once as creationists claim. Nor does it think the world is only 10-6 thousand years old.

    However, if this is the case, they why do we not see species abruptly appearing now? ID doesn't really explain this. However, if you ask someone like Michael Behe, he'd say that God tweaks the process of evolution at specific times, which results in new species being born. An analogy is that God adds his special spices to the soup of evolution when he wants a new species to appear. The result would be one species giving birth to a completely new species.

    In fact, Behe admits that the evidence that human beings shared a common ancestor with great apes is overwhelming. It's just that God that kicked the process of evolution into overdrive by flipping just the right genes at just the right time to result in human beings.

    To quote Behe from his book The Edge of Evolution.

    "The bottom line is this. Common descent is true; yet the explanation of common descent — even the common descent of humans and chimps — although fascinating, is in a profound sense trivial. It says merely that commonalities were there from the start, present in a common ancestor. It does not even begin to explain where those commonalities came from, or how humans subsequently acquired remarkable differences. Something that is nonrandom must account for the common descent of life."

    Common decent is true

    In other words, nothing "just happens" as evolutionary biologist would like us to believe. es, for mankind it is easier to measure what we can see, but measuring what is seen is not always the correct measure of the truth.

    This is faith, not science.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Scott,

    You said:"If God intentionally acts in ways to hide himself from us, then it is God who has excluded himself from scientific study."

    Scott what you've done and what science does is construct a world FIRST without God. That is the theorem upon which your theory is constructed to begin with. eg; scientific method has a false basis. Secondly, a great deal of testimon is discarded by scientific method such as eyewitness testimony confirming an expanded or open continuum. Scientific method becomes unscientific in excluding this based on it's need to limit tyhings to what can be measured....Therefore a false premise because not all scientific assumptions can be nmeasured.

    So there basis that you wish to construct is one based on a set of BELIEFS that are comfortable with you but that deny the principles which you hold dear. If the continuum is open scientific method seeks to minimize and overlook that as a possibility...therefore scientific method presupposes atheism all the way.

    I simply opoint out that is not a scientific construct.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Harvey L.o.L ...I can see your blood boils everytime you pityfully need to delete somebodies post.Heck my friend even a few words you cant handle,yet you expect me to lay down like a lamb and except the ignorance and nastiness of folks of faith dressed up in the cloth of a supposed god.Talking rumors about folks like me supposedly being followers of the Anti christ etc.When i have some very valid reasons for my disbelief that got nothing to do with the stupid ignorant idiotic rumors you spread.

    And i even find The Baptist Standard | The Texas Baptist Newsjournal only just published October 16, 2009 ,basically agreeing with what im talking about.Funny that!,after i posted yesterday it arrived while i was looking elsewhere.Like i was supposed to find it.

    L.o.L ...Hey Harvey yep i hurt over stuff,and if you are foolish enough to not admit its only human and quite natural...Thats fine...Im back to my old self now and like i usually am able to these false acusations will continue to mostly be just like water off a ducks back.

    I will most likely see you again in places like DC and as usual you wont get to me much.I will contiue to show you up time and time again as having double standards like how you are quite happy to say you follow blogs like this http://debunkingloftus.blogspot.com/2009/10/john-loftus-on-enlightenment.html

    A nasty blog that is aimed at personal attacks against somebody even you admit has been treated badly within faith.

    Yet you quite happy to freely follow and use this blog http://www.debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/ owned by the very same person you admit being wrongly treated by faith circles yet so happily gang up against with other false folks of faith.

    Why i bet you even might delete what i saying here cause it prick your pride and make your own blood boil a little and make you squirm and feel so uncomfortable,but it so very very lucky i happen to be keeping a copy of everything thats been said since these blogs started.

    But anyway ive now seen more reason why so many other people are happy to treat folks of faith nastily.I now understand why there is such an uprising to call them complete utter idiots etc.And if i see this attitude towards folks of faith get lots and lots worse, im going to remember you Pastor Harvey before im to quick in asking any non believers to show a little mercy and grace towards any folks of faith.

    I only hope if you really believe in some god that you honestly feel he`s happy with you for this.

    Guess time will tell huh...Guess time will tell if you arrive at those pearly gates and maybe god asks why were you obviously nasty and showing blatant double standards ...Why should i let you in Harvey the pastor he might say,when you helped turn many people away because of your attitude.

    :) .....Does my blood really sound like it boiling all the time Harv

    Do i really sound like i letting your ignorance totally distroy me ?? .... :)

    Do you honestly think you wont likely hear a lot more from me yet .... :)

    Why i might even use these words on these blogs to help write a book exposing Harvey the false pastor ... :)

    You wont mind will you my friend if you got nothing to hide ?

    What say ye :)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Scott,

    You said:"Furthermore, I'd guess that you'd think that a scientific and methodological study of God is wrong and would be fruitless."

    I forgot on the other post...you ask about measuring God or GFod hiding himself...What scientific method does and is capable of doing is tracing teh "footprints" of God. What if EVERYTHING you come to understand thropugh scientific discovers was simply your discopvery of what God has ALREADY done?

    The only reason you and other atheists can't see that is because you believe that all systems are closed and self contained. God has already established these sytems and what you discover through science is somethign that ALREADY exists becaue God establuished it.

    In other words proper science is not creative, it's only discovery. Science adds NOTHING to science. It only discovers the actions and workings that existed long before you got here.

    THAT'S THE FINGEERPRINT of God. But when your perceptions is already closed as athsists is one can't see it.

    You said:"Let's take the observation that things fall to the ground when you drop them. When we study gravity, we find it behaves in a way that is very predictable. In fact, it's so predictable that we've created a theory which we use in a wide range of applications."

    This is teh complete question of the movie The Matrix. It was that one program that acted in an unpredictable way that threw everything off. Similarly, God is that one free-will agent, that acts in an unpredictable manner. He is beyond us I agree. However he has afforded a means for us to knwo a part of him as it pertains to out life and well being, and agreed by contract out of his love to abide by that part, under the supervision of his will for each of us and all of us. That's what science will NEVER be able to measure. That one unrestricted free moral agent that can only be see through creation not restricted to creation. You'd rather him be restricted. Isay if he were he wouldn't be God...

    You said:"So, I'd ask you to clarify what you mean by Supernatural, what implications it has and how classifing things as supernatural is beneficial.

    I'm talking about metal floating, I'm talking about water becoming concrete for a mioment to walk on, I'm talking about winds and waves calming at HIS instructions, I'm talking about eyes, that have never seen anything gaining sight at the touch, I'm talking about dead (confirmed dead) some in cases of days, rising out of the grave without any of the "mortis boys" having laid claim. I'm talking about healing of physical bodies without intervention of men and physicians.

    Those are supernatural events. those are things that happen. Some of which science confirms through words like "spontaneous life" but has no clue as to why.

    The reason I accredit these things to God is because NONONE not even science makes the claims to have authority in any of these areas. God does and if he is God he certainly would. So that's what I mean by supernatural. the process may be open to discovery, but the fact is that only HE (God) does these sort of things.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Gandy,

    You said:Harvey L.o.L ...I can see your blood boils everytime you pityfully need to delete somebodies post.

    I haven't deleted any of yours Gandy and my blod isn't boiling. I'm simply not going to sit and go for the "pitiful" and reverse psychology that you try to throw on Laura or anyone elsse for that matter...NOBODY has ANYTHING to apologize to you about and for.

    You said:"Heck my friend even a few words you cant handle,yet you expect me to lay down like a lamb and except the ignorance and nastiness of folks of faith dressed up in the cloth of a supposed god.

    Obviously it seems that I am able to handle everthing that's been said so far. I don't expect any deviations for that in dealing with you either.

    You said:"When i have some very valid reasons for my disbelief that got nothing to do with the stupid ignorant idiotic rumors you spread."

    Besides crying "somebody did me wrong" what are they? If they are valid that should be easy.

    Obviously, you don't understand and advertisement for an apostate is what it is and not too many people are insterested in apostates on my blog except for in examining how and why they are apostates, almost like a lab rat...that's the kind of interest about the wors worldview imagineable there is over here. We already know the bankruptcy of your unbelief and ungodliness. Loftus's is no different. Refer individuals to Holdings blog, I think that's a mech better place to start when trying to understand Loftus and the travesty of DC that is burning up quicker than a firework on the 4th of July. Here's Holding's DEBUNKING Loftus and I'll add other unreasonable atheists:

    http://debunkingloftus.blogspot.com/

    You said:"Why i bet you even might delete what i saying here cause it prick your pride and make your own blood boil a little and make you squirm and feel so uncomfortable,but it so very very lucky i happen to be keeping a copy of everything thats been said since these blogs started."

    Once again the reverse angles don't work and are highly ineffective...all one needs to do is go to Holdings site to get a good understanding about all the ABSURD arguments at DC...here it is again:

    http://debunkingloftus.blogspot.com/

    You said:"But anyway ive now seen more reason why so many other people are happy to treat folks of faith nastily.I now understand why there is such an uprising to call them complete utter idiots etc.

    No What you see is the absolute darkness of your sinful heart and there's NOTHING you can do to bridge it except go to God. That's the idiocy that you don't want to hear...that's ok for me, let'e me know I'm doing my job.

    You said:"I only hope if you really believe in some god that you honestly feel he`s happy with you for this."

    One thiong I am confident of, is that God is please with me telling the TRUTH to you or anyone else through this venue. So HE'S happy.

    You said:"Why i might even use these words on these blogs to help write a book exposing Harvey the false pastor ... :)

    That would be nice, but you're in my book first, BTW, it'll be published as soon as I get it back from the editor, I've added a few things to it!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Scott,

    You said:"Regardless of how we got here, we exist in a physical world which reacts in direct response to our actions."

    The world operates with or without our actions. There is no input necessary from man for anything to function properly or in an orderly fashion in theis world. Your statement breathes self-exaltation.

    You said:"Furthermore, It's clear that human beings are very relevant in the world as we made dramatic changes, for better and worse, in the last 300 years. Our impact is unmistakable. Are you suggesting that we pretend we're not relevant?

    The basis for human relevance is not on what humans are able to do through science. Again a self exalted place only for "educated relevance". I'm sure this is the "proud look" that God spoke of that is an abomination to him...Nevertheless, man's value IS NOT contained in what he can deliver scientifically. He has a value that God saw far abouve his ability to know anything...therefore another difference between God and what science teaches through it's modern evangelists such as yourself.

    You said:"Second, should the world not be controlled by processes, it would be quite a unappealing place."

    That premise is not in question. The only premise that is in question is that you think that the processes we see and know are the only ones that there are. I know you leave room for additional scientific discovery, but I propose you'll never exhaust scientific discovery, and you certainly won't do anyone any better by denying evidences that superceed science.

    Yopu said:"Again, if God acted in a way that allowed him to be studied in a methodological way, his existence and involvement would be a scientific fact."

    As I said you see what God has already done and set forth through science. Science can't validate him. That would make science greater than him. All you can do is follow his trail.

    You said:"Or it could be that ancient humans, in a desperate attempt to understand themselves and the universe around them, created fictional characters which supposedly existed from the begining of time."

    Now one thing is certainly true. Historically mostly all nations have some sort of belief system...only modern nations engratiate atheism. In other words, your belief system isn't even culturaly commensurate, secondly atheism isn't a threat to theistic beliefs in the least. it's empty and hollow and leads nowhere. What appeal does that have when mostly everyone and their grandma sees that we are created spiritual beings, without knowing science, people seem to know that, at least until they've been indoctrinated into atheist propaganda.

    So atheism within science is the nature of the post, not science itslef. You obviously can't distinguish the differnce, the article tells us exactly why. There no misrepresentations there you statements are proof of it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Scott,

    You said:Saying, "God did it" is not science. It tells us nothing about how a phenomenon actually works.

    Saying that God DIDN'T do it is a presupposition and a contol belief that there is no God or that he didn't do it without any investigation to begin with. So your proposition tells me little. In fact your proposition restricts my learning and excludes what may be a possibility that better accunts for all the possible data. So your proposition is the unscientific one. That's where atheists hijack science and assume that science and atheism is one in the same. THEY ARE NOT.

    You said:Example, we used to think God opened a woman's womb. Why is this? Because couples did not always conceive and the process occurred internally, which we could not observe.

    Former ATHEIST and Christian evangelist C.S. Lewis handled that argument years ago. For there to be a superceeding of natural law is not uncommon to science. If God placed the seed within a woman and causeed it to fertilize all natural and normal processes would ensue. The problem is that there is a different set of laws that modern science cannot measure and they superceed natural laws at time. Why did the seed get in Mary's womb? Because it had been promised and God does not lie as I stated earlier.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Scott,

    You said:"Evolution is a theory that explains a series of facts."

    Yes and it does a poor job of even that as I've already explained for various reasons.

    You said:"For example, if there is no process, then why do we not see new species appearing one every month or two?"

    You see variations within phyla like collies and german sheppherds, they're all still dogs. You don't see any fish crawling out of the ocen neither do you see any apes giving birth to men. What you see is exactly as it should be if there were a common creator of all things...Guess what...there was!

    This is evolutionary apologetics 101:"Why doesn't a human couple who is trying to have a child give birth to a new species? This is because speciation occurs as part of a process. If it were not a process, then we couldn't predict when new species would appear or how."

    Now that's FUNNY...

    You stated so far as creation is concerned:"This means that, over a period of millions of years, species were abruptly appearing where none had existed before. To be crystal clear, ID does not think all forms of life were created at once as creationists claim."

    What this is called is a misinterpretation of the bible as it pertain to science. How long was the time before Adam sinned? FYI: Creation occured during that period. Can you give me the time line for it?

    I'll guarantee that most any answer you render will be wrong, if you attempt to say the bible is an inadequate record.

    You said regarding the appearance of species:ID doesn't really explain this.

    No ID attempts to explain that order doesn't arrive from disorder by blind chance and time. What it says is that if we observe something functioning regularly under modern scientific methods we readily say that those processes were established and orderly. However under evolutionary premises we throw out scientific method and makes all kinds of leaps into blind chasims with statments like, natural selection, random processes etc...So ID doesn't prove God but it does confirm order and order doesn't esist without there being some establishment of that order and "primordial soup" just doesn't get it.

    You said:"In fact, Behe admits that the evidence that human beings shared a common ancestor with great apes is overwhelming."

    Behe isn't the posterchild for Christianity nor science IF we take what you say as critics to be correct is he?

    Now what is it? Is Behe somehow RIGHT about this and WRONG about ID? How is that and on what basis is that? Seems to me to be simply a matter of convenience for sake of argument...ie: Claim he's right when we say something we like, otherwiose he's wrong!-Now that's a farce!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Scott said "Saying, "God did it" is not science. It tells us nothing about how a phenomenon actually works."

    Ah, yes. But what happens when the evidence of "how it works" points to God and God alone? Science simply names God.

    His name, among all the other great and wonderful names of the Almighty, is "Cosmological Singularity".

    The latest evidence shows that the universe began 13.7 billion years ago at the Singularity. Stephen Hawking proved mathematically that the Singularity is not in time or in space, but outside both. In other words, the Singularity is transcendent to space and time.

    And something else very cool too. They also used physical laws to tell us what the Cosmological Singularity — God — is like.

    The laws of physics tell us that our universe began in an initial singularity, and it will end in a final singularity. The laws also tell us that ours is but one of an infinite number of universes, all of which begin and end in a singularity.

    If we look carefully at the collection of all the universes (called the multiverse) we see that there is a third singularity, at which the multiverse began. But physics shows us that these three apparently distinct singularities are actually one Singularity. The Three are One.

    Is that not the coolest thing? The Trinity is represented in all of creation from the very beginning when God said "Let US make...".

    "Science has had the Theory of Everything" for about 30 years. Most physicists dislike this Theory of Everything because it requires the universe to begin in a Singularity.

    That is, they dislike it because the theory is consistent only if God exists, and most contemporary scientists are atheists. They don’t want God to exist, and if keeping God out of science requires rejecting physical laws, well, so be it."

    ~quote from Frank J. Tipler's book "The Physics of Christianity".
    Tipler is a mathematical physicist and cosmologist, holding a joint appointment in the Departments of Mathematics and Physics at Tulane University

    ReplyDelete
  33. Harvey my friend no im not worried about any apology ...And certainly wouldnt expect one from any christians at all thats for sure ..L.o.L...You must think im stupid and came down in the last shower of rain if you thought i thought that might honestly happen.I know christians all to very well to expect any apologies.

    L.o.L ...One moment on your blog you admitting John had good reasons,next you back saying good on everyone for giving him heaps he deserves every bit of it...I like it you know!! ...cause the youth especially will easily see right through it..They dont miss much which is why they dropping like flys from faith these days.I read in a news item the other day where it said the 18-25year old non religious polulation has doubled over last 20 years in the U.S.A....And number of secular student groups on campus in colleges has doubled just in the last two years alone.And i visit many other sites like DC regular ,and always amazed to see more and more young people there talking about how they no longer believers.Many tell their own accounts of how bad many folks of faith act up.And more and more of these sites appear all the time,its a real revolution thats happening today Harv...Spreading like wildfire with harsh fellows like you fanning the flames real good and proper like

    No my reason to post my account was mostly for any youth who might be reading your blog,so they get to see both sides and decide for themselves whether they think im just simply some anti-christ follower or not.

    Hey so cool im going to be in Harveys book, i like it.Can i get a free copy?,or i got to pay for it :(.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Gandy,

    Thanks for the concern for the youth but you and atheists in general do them the worst possible harm trying to convert them to atheism.

    First, based on studies most of these youth that draw away from church at intermediate years ARE NOT simply converting to atheism. They are in many cases getting too busy establishing themselves to attend church. Others are discovering other religious systems, but a smaller portion give up theism all together. The trend also is that many of them come back to church later in life and reestablish permanent relationships as they begin their families.

    So the church is not in danger especially from atheism even though it's reguraly taught by autthority and endorsement of the state for all these years. So the church is much stronger than you think and is yet growing despite the falling away that Jesus sopoke of in Mt. 24. This is also why he said "many that are first shall be last" (Mt. 19:30) not ALL.

    You said:L.o.L ...One moment on your blog you admitting John had good reasons,next you back saying good on everyone for giving him heaps he deserves every bit of it...I like it you know!!

    I've never stated ANYWHERE that John's reasons were and are good enough for him to leave Christ. John's choice was horrible and shows an awful weakness of the mind, although the church did not help, at least those that he knew.

    Many leave Christ for various reasons. However most times it's not because of wht Christ has fdone to them it's because of what they thought Christ should do, but who are we to tell him what he should do...The strength of our lives are revealed through adversity...I know because I've had many bad hands dealt to me that I couldn't do anything about but I dealt with them even as I do now and don't cry about the "woe is me"...I've been homeless and hungry, but I found a friend in Christ instead of blaming Christ for what I experienced...I learned to do what's call "man up" and get with building my life according to his will and my life has been made much better ofr it...there is NOTHING an atheist can say to sway my thoughts becauise I KNOW what Christ ahs done for me and helped me to do for myself that I couldn't do.

    I'm sorry you couldn't make it past your experience but I made it past mine and I've got Jesus himself to thank. No atheist did ANYTHING for me. And I see why because atheism is buiilt on self-interest of Rand, Darwin, and the list goes on.

    As I said earlier, people who say there is no God and disrespect his Christ, is an Anti-Christ. When you advocate that position in life and with your life why should you be offended when someone calls you an Anti-Christ Advocate Why would that be offensive to someone who denies Jesus and God the Father.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Laura,

    "If we look carefully at the collection of all the universes (called the multiverse) we see that there is a third singularity, at which the multiverse began. But physics shows us that these three apparently distinct singularities are actually one Singularity. The Three are One."

    When making outrageous statements like that you need to provide a source, or citation.

    Your statement is not true.
    There are several different hypotheses on this issue but no theory has been proposed.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Laura wrote: The latest evidence shows that the universe began 13.7 billion years ago at the Singularity. Stephen Hawking proved mathematically that the Singularity is not in time or in space, but outside both. In other words, the Singularity is transcendent to space and time.

    Laura,

    The problem with this argument is that our current understanding of space and time also breaks down in the center of a black hole.

    Black holes are formed when a star runs out of fuel and collapses into a super dense and compact region of space. Not even light can escape it's gravitational pull. In addition, we now know that there are super-massive black holes in the center of each galaxy, which keep the solar systems in orbit. (Much like how the earth stays in orbit around the sun due to it's gravitational pull)

    So, here we have a series of natural events which results in a condition where our current mathematical models of time and space break down. Does this mean black holes supernatural? No, it does not.

    Nor does this mean that the Big Bang or and other singularly is caused by a non-material, intelligent agent. This conclusion does not necessary follow. It's faith, not science.

    The laws of physics tell us that our universe began in an initial singularity, and it will end in a final singularity.

    Laura,

    Here's the clue that you're dealing with misrepresentations or out dated information. (You really need to learn to recognize them) There is more than one hypothesis regarding how the universe will end. This includes the Big Freeze and even a relatively new theory called the Big Rip. Neither of which are singularities. If your source is really a physicist, he would know this. My guess is that either the material is outdated or he intentionally omitted it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Froggie,

    You asked:"When making outrageous statements like that you need to provide a source, or citation."

    It goes to show that atheist eyes are not too good when it comes to looking at truth...Laura stated the following info for her quote:

    ~quote from Frank J. Tipler's book "The Physics of Christianity".
    Tipler is a mathematical physicist and cosmologist, holding a joint appointment in the Departments of Mathematics and Physics at Tulane University


    So was that enough reference for ya, or do you need her to mail you the book opened to the page?

    ReplyDelete
  38. DSHB,
    You said,
    "Froggie,

    You asked:"When making outrageous statements like that you need to provide a source, or citation."

    It goes to show that atheist eyes are not too good when it comes to looking at truth...Laura stated the following info for her quote:

    ~quote from Frank J. Tipler's book "The Physics of Christianity".
    Tipler is a mathematical physicist and cosmologist, holding a joint appointment in the Departments of Mathematics and Physics at Tulane University

    So was that enough reference for ya, or do you need her to mail you the book opened to the page?"

    There were two paragraphs in Laura's screed that were quoted.

    The paragraph that I complained about was not covered by the quote.
    Sorry, lil buddy.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Laura,
    "The latest evidence shows that the universe began 13.7 billion years ago at the Singularity."

    A couple days ago you wrote that you believed in the literal interpretation of a six day creation as per Genesis, "Lock stock, and barrell."

    Now you're trying to prove the existence of some supernatural being using corrupted physics.

    Which is it?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Tipler was once a fairly repected scientist but he has descended into the depths of insanity. He's become the laughing stock of valid scientists and he has misrepresented Hawkins on numerous occasions.

    His book is described as:

    "a masterpiece of pseudoscience ... the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline."-----George Ellis, "Review of The Physics of Immortality". Nature 371(1994)

    Tipler has made claims that he can use the laws of physics to explain the ressurection and that Tipler also analyzes how Jesus Christ could have performed the miracles attributed to him in the New Testament without violating any known laws of physics in his book Omega Point.

    The guy is a nut.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Scott,

    Statement that Laura made are not outdated. These are mostly based on current astrophysicist discoveries and research of universal origins.

    Once such researcher is Dr. Hugh Ross Go to this site scroll down beneath the video and go to "Scientific Evidence Proves God Created" A 4 part series and as I said these studies are CURRENT.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Froggie,

    Based on a critical review of his book you said:"Tipler has made claims that he can use the laws of physics to explain the ressurection and that Tipler also analyzes how Jesus Christ could have performed the miracles attributed to him in the New Testament without violating any known laws of physics in his book Omega Point." And you conclude, out of your illustrious wisdom that he's a nut.

    So how is he a nut when applying the same principles that scientist normally use for other events, to known biblical events?

    Wouldn't it be unscientific NOT to apply those principles?

    I mean aside from the issue of a real event in history, which is confirmed even by the most critical scholars, isn't that how proper scientific research is applied?

    The ONLY reason it wouldn't be is if there was a ANTI-SUPERNATURAL BIAS to begin with...A PRESUPPOSITION OF CONTROL BELIEF against the events itself.

    The only reason you would disagree with his principles is if you ASSUME atheistic premises to begin with and as we DISCOVER again...THAT'S NOT SCIENCE. Science IS NOT atheism as you presuppose.

    ReplyDelete
  43. DSHB

    "So how is he a nut when applying the same principles that scientist normally use for other events, to known biblical events?"

    His math doesn't work. He's not doing science. He shows no evidence.

    "Wouldn't it be unscientific NOT to apply those principles?"

    He is grossly misapplying the "science."

    "I mean aside from the issue of a real event in history, which is confirmed even by the most critical scholars, isn't that how proper scientific research is applied?"

    If you are referring to the resuuretion you are very wrong. There is not a shread of evidence to support the resurrection.

    "The ONLY reason it wouldn't be is if there was a ANTI-SUPERNATURAL BIAS to begin with...A PRESUPPOSITION OF CONTROL BELIEF against the events itself."
    I have no bias. There is no empirical evidence for the supernatural. If there was, it would be natural.

    "The only reason you would disagree with his principles is if you ASSUME atheistic premises to begin with and as we DISCOVER again...THAT'S NOT SCIENCE. Science IS NOT atheism as you presuppose."

    The label Atheist has nothing to do with how science is done. We go where the evidence takes us.


    You are the one dealing in philosophy and your attempts to label science as philosophy are absurd beyond description.

    ReplyDelete
  44. DSHB,

    "Once such researcher is Dr. Hugh Ross."

    Oh boy!
    Now you are using another failed scientist, but who trusts in the veracity of an old earth. He doesn't support your beliefs.

    You are the one that presupposes a supernatural power yet there is no evidence.
    Ross uses the bible to try to prove the bible is truth. That is not science.

    Ross is rediculous. He shoehorns all manner of scientific finding into disparate bible verses.

    ReplyDelete
  45. DSHB,
    I recommend that you go over to the Bilogos Foundation site and see how real Christian scientists do science.

    I suppose that next you'll be quoting Ken Ham.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Froggie,

    You said:"His math doesn't work. He's not doing science. He shows no evidence."

    How do you know? Have you seen his calculations or the calculations of those who have done similar? What are the variables missing from his calculations and what are the flaws...be specific, maybe they need your input in their methodology.

    You said:"He is grossly misapplying the "science."

    How is that a misapplication when science is supposedly all about discovery? Where is the "gross misapplication"? Like I said we need you to enter the fray and correct their conclusions.

    You said:"If you are referring to the resuuretion you are very wrong. There is not a shread of evidence to support the resurrection.

    There are all kinds of shreds, not to mention that the biblical record can't be discounted. We have extra-biblical and hostile sources that all say that Jesus died and was crucified, ie: the body went in...we have the Jews creating an apologetic trying to explain away the resurrection and we have a host of testimony confirming what the eyewitness testimony of the account was...The we have early second century writings stating what was commonly believed and practiced among early Christians which included the belief in resurrection, only RADICALS live in disbelief...In fact the resurrection is the ONLY thing that accounts for the data surrounding the events...not to mention the conversion of critics who were originally unsympathetic to the Christian cause and became believes at the loss of every worldly advancement that they could have had....So there is PLENTY of evidence for the event...So back to the question, Why wouldn't the same principles be used for the resurrection account as other historical events? And I will conclude once again, the only reason you think it yo be absurd is because of BIAS and PRESUPPOSITION against the supernatural event...not science.

    You said:"I have no bias. There is no empirical evidence for the supernatural. If there was, it would be natural."

    Bad argument. The supernatural supersedes the natural laws that we are familiar with. They are not defined by natural laws and just as a jet temporarily defies gravity based on the superseding of natural laws, they are temporary in nature eg a miracle or miraculous.

    You said:"The label Atheist has nothing to do with how science is done. We go where the evidence takes us."

    A terrible lie repeated makes it no more true. Atheist premises within science denies evidences and testimony toward the evidence of the supernatural all day. That shouldn't be the way it's done but it is because there's pressure to maintain understanding and principles within the realm of the material world. That is materialism. These principles are not open to suggestions of an open continuum.

    You said:"You are the one dealing in philosophy and your attempts to label science as philosophy are absurd beyond description."

    Outside of empirical Science, it is philosophy. There are philosophical assumption that go along with science that YOU present. YOU make the assumption that there is no God based on your philosophical views of scientific results. That expression is controlled by your worldview, not the scientific evidence. You make conclusion based on your bias...that's the terrible condition of modern science, only that real scientists consider this and know the difference.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Froggie,

    You saidOh boy!...Now you are using another failed scientist, but who trusts in the veracity of an old earth. He doesn't support your beliefs."

    "Failed scientist" How did he fail? Simply because he sets forth concepts that you don't agree with? Ye that's a real failure---pleassse!

    It doesn't matter if he supports what you "think" I believe or not, he certainly doesn't support your premises and on the topic, we both agree...so what is there for me to complain about over that?

    ReplyDelete
  48. DSHB,

    I said,
    "You said:"I have no bias. There is no empirical evidence for the supernatural. If there was, it would be natural."

    The you said,

    "Bad argument. The supernatural supersedes the natural laws that we are familiar with. They are not defined by natural laws and just as a jet temporarily defies gravity based on the superseding of natural laws, they are temporary in nature eg a miracle or miraculous."

    That is fractured rhetoric and logic. You can fool some people with the twisted logic you try to apply, but you're not fooling me.

    First of all, jet does not in any manner "defy gravity."
    Planes overcome the force of gravity with an opposing force.

    There is no indication in any science that there is a supernatural.
    If a supernatural was detected it would be due to the fact that it could be measured.
    You are ating like some little kid that can't have their way.

    "Outside of empirical Science, it is philosophy. There are philosophical assumption that go along with science that YOU present."

    No kidding. We are speaking to empirical science and not philosophy.
    Philosophy doesn't prove anything.
    You are becoming more absurd by the minute.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Froggie,

    You said:First of all, jet does not in any manner "defy gravity."
    Planes overcome the force of gravity with an opposing force.


    So the opposing force does not defy the other?

    You said:"There is no indication in any science that there is a supernatural."

    Science has no measure for the supernatural, wonder why?Because the supernatural IS NOT a consideration of modern science...why build something to measure anything that you don't believe exists...dress it up all you want it's still and ugly pig.

    You said:No kidding. We are speaking to empirical science and not philosophy. Philosophy doesn't prove anything.You are becoming more absurd by the minute.

    You brand of science is philosophical because you make assumptions that the science doesn't say. You make philosophical statements based on discovery. That's not the right of science and as I said, REAL scientists know the difference. We can see this easily as science is presented when it declares certain theories to be "fact" when they are not and when it declares certain things to be excluded from the realm of possibilities which are not based on testimony and evidence that metaphysical naturalists such as yourself overlook...in addition this "new knowledge" when hailed historically was unproven...it was conjecture until method was applied, so you cant tell me in any way that science doesn't have a philosophical basis...your reasoning is absurd...you've just never realized the truth of it before.

    In addition that's not the problem of science the problem is when those two are not distinguished and atheist premises are inserted as being factual that's atrocious.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Pastor Harvey said "It goes to show that atheist eyes are not too good when it comes to looking at truth...Laura stated the following info for her quote:..."

    Hi Pastor! Not only did I give the sourse of the quote (the mathematical physicist and cosmologist), but I gave the sourse of who proved mathematically the Singularity -Stephen Hawking, theoretical physicist in cosmology and quantum gravity, especially in the context of black holes.

    Scott said "The problem with this argument is that our current understanding of space and time also breaks down in the center of a black hole."

    If anyone in the world could prove a theory taking black holes into account, it would be Stephen Hawking. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  51. Frog said "A couple days ago you wrote that you believed in the literal interpretation of a six day creation as per Genesis, "Lock stock, and barrell."
    Now you're trying to prove the existence of some supernatural being using corrupted physics.
    Which is it?"


    That's easy. I believe that, like carbon dating, the radiation background that's used for dating will be proven false in time.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Laura,

    That's what I was talking about...those atheist eyes...

    ReplyDelete
  53. I think faster than I type. That would be the radiation background that's used for dating the universe will be proven false.

    ReplyDelete
  54. DSHB,

    "So the opposing force does not defy the other?"

    Correct. To defy is to do something not thought possible. There is no terminology used in aeronautical engineering applied to forces that imply an force would defy another.

    We have often heard the phrase, "this defies logic or explanation."

    "Science has no measure for the supernatural, wonder why?Because the supernatural IS NOT a consideration of modern science..."

    No, that is not true and you know it. If you could be king and tell science they had to consider the supernatural they would merely say, OK, show us what to measure.

    "why build something to measure anything that you don't believe exists...

    ReplyDelete
  55. DSHB,

    ""why build something to measure anything that you don't believe exists..."

    You're cracking me up. What would you have them build? A meter to measure what?
    You are contradicting yourself. You have admitted that the supernatural is outside the natural.

    "You brand of science is philosophical because you make assumptions that the science doesn't say."

    That is a totally unsubstantiated fallacy.

    "You make philosophical statements based on discovery."

    I do not. I look at the evidence.

    "That's not the right of science and as I said, REAL scientists know the difference. We can see this easily as science is presented when it declares certain theories to be "fact" when they are not......"

    Now give yourself away as being totally ognorant of the Theory of Evolution.

    Nobody says the Theory of Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is supported by many facts. Facts can be tested and must be falsifiable.

    There is a huge collection of facts pointing to the veracity of the ToE, and there are no other competing theories based on empirical evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Frogie said "His book is described as: "a masterpiece of pseudoscience ... the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline."-----George Ellis, "Review of The Physics of Immortality". Nature 371(1994)

    I'll see your quote and raise you a couple more:

    "Besides being fascinating in its bold proclamations, this is, in fact, a very weighty book, filled with complex ideas and sophisticated results. ... Tipler has written a masterpiece for the Age of Aquarius, conferring much-craved scientific respectability on what we have always wanted to believe in. ..."
    Science, 17 February 1995 (vol 267, page 1042)

    "... I believe that the omega-point theory [Physics of Immortality] deserves to become the prevailing theory of the future of spacetime ..."
    physicist David Deutsch, Oxford University, on page 355 of his book The Fabric of Reality (Penguin 1997)

    So just like the evolution discussion, if you don't like the message, attack the messenger. That way, you don't have to deal with opposing theories and facts, right?

    You just demonstrated exactly what is wrong with science today. Have you seen the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" yet? Or are your eyes closed tight, with your hands over your ears while chanting "Dawkins is god, Dawkins is god"?

    In case Gandy wants to know - that dawkins thing right there was a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Hi Pastor! Big work day (and week). I'll check in on the fly later.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Laura,

    "I think faster than I type. That would be the radiation background that's used for dating the universe will be proven false."

    You mean you type faster than you think.

    I am so glad that someone who cannot construct a consistant is declaring that the background radiation will be shown to be false.

    I'm sure that science will come to a screeching halt once you tell them that.
    Alert the media!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  59. Harvey wrote: Statement that Laura made are not outdated. These are mostly based on current astrophysicist discoveries and research of universal origins.

    As I suggested, If it's not outdated, then he's intentionally leaving out information. The big freeze is NOT a singularity, yet it is a mainstream hypothesis on final disposition of the universe. Apparently he's conveniently omitted this because it doesn't fit his religious beliefs.

    Furthermore, if you recall, we've already discussed his video at length. Right from the start, it misrepresents Hawkins by quote mining his book. Why should I take anything this video has say seriously?

    Again, these are red flags regarding presetting his religious views as scientific fact.

    If anyone in the world could prove a theory taking black holes into account, it would be Stephen Hawking. :-)

    Larua,

    My point here is that the existence of a singularly does not require a supernatural cause. We know this because black holes are formed by the collapse of stars when they run out of fuel. It's a natural process which is explained by the theory of stelar evolution and other scientific theories.

    Furthermore, it's blatantly clear the video's author is quote mining Hawkins. I'd recommend both of you vet your sources more carefully in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Harvey wrote: Scott what you've done and what science does is construct a world FIRST without God.

    Again, if God were to present himself in a concrete way, then science would include him. But God does no such thing. That you have faith that God created everything does not make it science.

    eg; scientific method has a false basis.

    Until we see evidence that God created the universe, then this isn't a false bias, it's simply not scientific statement.

    If the continuum is open scientific method seeks to minimize and overlook that as a possibility...therefore scientific method presupposes atheism all the way.

    There is no evidence that theism is true. Therefore, we start out without theism, which is atheism. Again, if God hides from us, then he's the one who prevents scientific acknowledgment.

    The only reason you and other atheists can't see that is because you believe that all systems are closed and self contained.

    False. Evidence that God exists doesn't magically appear or become visible if we believe God exists. Instead, you're asking science to change it's definition to include faith. This is NOT science.

    In other words proper science is not creative, it's only discovery. Science adds NOTHING to science. It only discovers the actions and workings that existed long before you got here.

    I have no idea what this means or how it presents evidence that God exists.

    I'm talking about metal floating, I'm talking about water becoming concrete for a mioment to walk on, I'm talking about winds and waves calming at HIS instructions, I'm talking about eyes, that have never seen anything gaining sight at the touch, I'm talking about dead (confirmed dead) some in cases of days, rising out of the grave without any of the "mortis boys" having laid claim. I'm talking about healing of physical bodies without intervention of men and physicians.

    Harvey, science is about understanding why and how things happen based on a large number of observations. We then use this knowledge to make predictions about when and how things will happen in the future. This is what science does. All of these things are not observable in a way that gives us concrete details about how they occur and why.

    Therefore, we cannot make a "theory of supernatural resurrection" which allows us to predict or describe how resurrection occurs (or if it even happens at all). We can say the same about a "theory of supernatural healing." We cannot predict when someone will be resurrected nor can we use this knowledge to cause someone to be supernaturally healed. It's simply not scientific in nature. That you believe people were supernaturally resurrected or healed is a matter of faith.

    So that's what I mean by supernatural. the process may be open to discovery, but the fact is that only HE (God) does these sort of things.

    We do not know if God even exists, let along that any of his supposed claims are true. God's existence is not a fact. If it was, then faith would not be necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  61. The world operates with or without our actions. There is no input necessary from man for anything to function properly or in an orderly fashion in theis world. Your statement breathes self-exaltation.

    Harvey, in case you haven't noticed, we live on this planet. Unless we exterminate ourselves, we have an significant impact on our world by our very existence. Even the method in which we might exterminat ourselves would have an impact on the world. Do you deny this?

    The basis for human relevance is not on what humans are able to do through science.

    We've reached a point in our knowledge where our actions could destroy ourselves and nearly every living thing on our planet. It might be an accident or it could be intentional. Again, do you deny this? How is this not relevant?

    Again, I think we have a moral responsibility to learn as much as we can about how our actions can impact ourselves, others and our world.

    Nevertheless, man's value IS NOT contained in what he can deliver scientifically.

    That's a polarized statement. While I agree that man's value is not completely contained in science (music and art is not science), It's a very significant aspect. For example, human suffering can be reduced though advances in medicine and other scientific disciplines.

    …and you certainly won't do anyone any better by denying evidences that supersede science.

    History clearly shows exactly how very very wrong this statement is.

    We tried that already. It was called "the dark ages", which set us back 800 years or so. Think of how many people unnecessarily suffered and died during that time due to now curable diseases. Think of how many people die today due to cancer and HIV, which will likely be cured in the next 100 years or so. Think of the clean energy sources and food we provide food to the oppressed and hungry.

    Science can't validate him.

    Then it seems we're in agreement on this point. God is not a scientific construct. Nor can science point to God has having done anything in a concrete way.

    However, this does not mean that science is unfairly biassed against God. That's like saying science is unfairly biased against the Tooth Fairy, Astrology or Alien Intervention Theory.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Saying that God DIDN'T do it is a presupposition and a control belief that there is no God or that he didn't do it without any investigation to begin with.

    Science cannot say God did anything because God has yet to be proven to exhibit any specific features or abilities. It's like trying to say the answer to 2+400 is something other than a number and calling it math. This is a category error.

    While we do not know how gravity works, we include it in science because it behaves in a predictable way. But God does no such thing. Saying God did anything doesn't tell us when God will do anything or exactly how he manages to do it. That God created gravity doesn't help us launch the space shuttle into orbit.

    So your proposition is the unscientific one.

    Huh? Please make up your mind. Can God be proven by science or not?

    For there to be a superceeding of natural law is not uncommon to science.

    Natural laws are superseded by other natural laws.

    My point here is that a large number of phenomenon once thought to be supernatural in nature have been found to be the result of complex natural processes. History has shown this to be true time and time again. The supernatural has continued to shrink at an exponential rate and it shows no sign of reversing.

    Because it had been promised and God does not lie as I stated earlier.

    Harvey, here's the problem with this sort of argument...

    Imagine someone decides to write a book called Colors, Farm Animals and Satellites. In the book, the author goes on to claim that the sky is blue, pigs can fly and that the moon is made out of green cheese. When he wrote these words, the author truly believed that the sky is blue and that the moon is made from green cheese. But when he wrote that pigs can fly, he knew they could not and was intentionally presenting a falsehood.

    However, when submitting the book to be published, he puts your name, Harvey Burnett, as the author instead of his own!

    Now, if I say that pigs cannot fly, am I calling you a liar? Since we have scientifically proven that the moon is NOT made of green cheese, does this mean YOU lied? Of course not. Just because the book has your name on it doesn't mean you actually wrote it.

    And what is the Bible? It's a collection of books written by men, who put God's name on them. How do you know that each and every of these books were actually written by God? How do you know they represent God's promises? Because they have God's name on them?

    But there are a number of other books with God's name on them, such as the Qu'an, that you think were NOT written by God and make conflicting statements. So, when the Qu'an says Mohammed is the true prophet, instead of Jesus, does this mean God lied? Of course not.

    Last, if you found out there was a book with your name on it which you did not write, you'd hold a press conference and hire lawyers to make sure everyone knew you actually did not write it.

    Correct?

    So then why doesn't God take action and set the record straight about the Qu'an? Nor is this a minor issue as Islam the second largest religion after Christianity. If Christianity is true, then they are all going to hell because of a book that God didn't write, but bares his name.

    ReplyDelete
  63. What you see is exactly as it should be if there were a common creator of all things...Guess what...there was!

    Harvey, you're missing the point. Creation is not a process. it's magic.

    You're saying that we do not see new species popping up every week merely because God doesn't want new species to appear every week. Everything boils down to the idea that God just happens to decide things should occur whenever he wants them to happen.

    The problem is you could say this about absolutely anything. Do hundreds of children contract and die of leukemia because God wants them to? Nor do we know that God even exists or that would want things even if he did. instead, evolution defines a complex process that predicts when and how speculation occurs.

    Now that's FUNNY...

    Let's compare evolution to your answer, shall we? The only reason human couples to not give birth to crockaducks… because God doesn't want them to? Again the problem here is that it implies God could change his mind next week and new species would begin appearing out of thin air, etc.

    What this is called is a misinterpretation of the bible as it pertain to science.

    ID is merely acknowledging the overwhelming evidence that the earth is billions of years old. It's been dragged kicking and screaming into accepting this as fact. Just as Christianity was dragged kicking and screaming into accepting that the earth orbits the sun.

    Scientists like Michael Behe have merely retreated and regrouped to attack exactly how we came to share a common ancestor with great apes. (in contrast to claiming it never occurred) Stephan Myer did the same thing with his most recent book. Instead of directly attacking evolution, he's retreated to biogenesis.

    Again, the supernatural continues to loose ground, even in the Christian scientific community. The evidence is simply too overwhelming.

    Seems to me to be simply a matter of convenience for sake of argument...ie: Claim he's right when we say something we like, otherwiose he's wrong!-Now that's a farce!

    Harvey, I invite you to re-read this last paragraph. Then look at the prior two posts regarding evolution. You've done the same thing you've just accused me of.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Froggie,

    You said:Correct. To defy is to do something not thought possible. There is no terminology used in aeronautical engineering applied to forces that imply an force would defy another.

    OK normal people understand defy to men this:
    1.
    a. To oppose or resist with boldness and assurance: defied the blockade by sailing straight through it.
    b. To refuse to submit to or cooperate with: defied the court order by leaving the country.
    2. To be unaffected by; resist or withstand: "So the plague defied all medicines" (Daniel Defoe).
    3. To challenge or dare (someone) to do something: She defied her accusers to prove their charges.
    The Free Dictionary and that's a pretty standard definition. Now you use some "science definition to say that's not possible for any force to oppose another force...I think you should go back to "Cracker Jack" and get a refund.

    You said:"You're cracking me up. What would you have them build? A meter to measure what?
    You are contradicting yourself. You have admitted that the supernatural is outside the natural."


    What I've admitted is that science cannot and does not have a way to measure it. Why? God is an immaterial reality. Science supposedly does not measure that sort of thing under most circumstances anyway.

    I said:"You make philosophical statements based on discovery."

    You said:I do not. I look at the evidence.

    I say you do notr. You exclude what evidence that you want to exclude to begin with built around your presuppositional bias. Your bias is materialism, and as a bat is blind at noon, that's how you entertain the thoughts of the supernatural and supernatural laws...everythuing that defies methopdological naturalism you table until further scientific knowledge can provide an answer. this is called scientism, or the belief that science is at the center of all knowledge or is the place from which all knowledge flows. This is called worship of an idol, in this case your idol is science.

    What you do is fill the premises of your study with atheistic biases. This is NOT how it should be done but it's so normal for you until you have no clue. As I state modern science is a philosophical construct and your antisupernatural bias is proof.

    IF it were not, you couldn't be an atheist under scienctific method. At BEST you could be an agnostic, because you would have to table the question of GOd and say that all scientific knowledge hasn't been gained therefore we cannot make an adequate scientific assessment that he does not exist...

    BUT YOU DON'T DO THAT DO YOU?

    You make a PRESUPPOSITION from the beginning and all evidence you find you interpret in light of your worldview...

    ReplyDelete
  65. Froggie,

    One of the strangest things you've said is this:

    Now give yourself away as being totally ognorant of the Theory of Evolution...Nobody says the Theory of Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is supported by many facts. Facts can be tested and must be falsifiable...There is a huge collection of facts pointing to the veracity of the ToE, and there are no other competing theories based on empirical evidence.

    Your god Dawkins wrote a book on it that says...the
    FACT of evolution and says this in his video


    You said this:"Now give yourself away as being totally ognorant of the Theory of Evolution."

    Now WHO'S TOTALLY IGNORANT here?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Scott,

    You said:Until we see evidence that God created the universe, then this isn't a false bias, it's simply not scientific statement.

    I propose that evidence is abundant and you simply interpret it with a bias and do not credit what evidence you see to God. That's OK because that's where the philosophical belief enters. Now on the other hand you CANNOT legitimately say that you see no evidence for God. that's a philosophical statement. You can proclaim what you see but saying that you see no evidence of him IS NOT science.

    You said:There is no evidence that theism is true. Therefore, we start out without theism, which is atheism. Again, if God hides from us, then he's the one who prevents scientific acknowledgment.

    Once again you bias bleeds through. This statement says that science has measured the possibility of God and has a means to measure it and God is therefore lacking. This is a philosophical premise that science is not equipped to deal with. That's what I mean by bias. I'm sorry to repeat but you keep repeating with slightly different variations.

    You said: False. Evidence that God exists doesn't magically appear or become visible if we believe God exists.

    ABSOLUTELY correct, and I wouldn't ask a scientist to simply replace his bias with another. I say let science do what it's supposed to do and simply set forth theories and facts regarding the material universe, not the immaterial universe as atheism in science confusingly does.

    You said: Instead, you're asking science to change it's definition to include faith. This is NOT science.

    No, that's where you got me and everything I've said wrong. I simply say relive science of it's atheistic bias. Anything that tells me that God does not exist WITHOUT study or a way to measure HIS existence is BIAS and unscientific.

    You said:"Therefore, we cannot make a "theory of supernatural resurrection" which allows us to predict or describe how resurrection occurs (or if it even happens at all).

    There is MUCH that you admit that can't be explained right now under modern science, that lack of knowledge DOES NOT invalidate the reality of such now does it. I mean you admit that "we don't know everything about evolution" and I certainly agree...But in your mind does that lack of knowledge invalidate it? NO!

    Why does a lack of knowledge, especially scientific knowledge invalidate God?

    To invalidate him based on that lack of knowledge is unreasonable and a BIAS as I continue to state. Your basic proposition as it pertains to God is SCIENTIFICALLY unreasonable.

    You said;We do not know if God even exists, let along that any of his supposed claims are true."

    You have over 4000 years of personal and individual testimony, you have experience of the currently living, you have a resource that cannot be invalidated as authentic by any means (the bible) and historical critical scientific methodology of the record that EXCEEDS anything written in it's time or in history. You have ALL the basic and necessary elements to conduct a thorough investigation. Lee Strobel did. C.S. Lewis did. Even Anthony Flew did.

    How about you?

    ReplyDelete
  67. DSHB,
    On the Dawkins quote.
    He definitely refers to the theory as being a fact. All of the facts together do totally support the ToE to the point here many scientists do say "it did happen, that's a fact."

    I will stick to the formal scientific definition whereby theories are the highest certainty granted in the natural sciences.

    If you think you understand evolution on a level with Dawkins, think again lil buddy.

    We could exchange quote mines and argue about there meaning in context all day. I'm not going to do that. If I did, I'm not going to again.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Scott,

    One more thing and I'll leave you alone in for a minute. You're caught up with me saying that God can't be proven by science and yet it's unscientific to exclude him from scientific method and I want you to know I am fully aware of what I'm saying and I'm on point.

    The last post goes into detail but to summarize:

    If God exists science can only see what he's done and institutes in the world. That's what we discover through science.

    If science does not lend itself to philosophical principles of bias, it will not be able to make any judgements on whether the God of the bible did these things or not.

    Science is filled with philosophical principles and biases as I believe that I've demonstrated, for to say that God does not exist is not science it is philosophical meandering.

    To say that he does not exist is at the same time a voiolation of scientific methodology because it begind a premise with a philosophical control belief.

    ie: Before you begin you limit any possible answeres to methodolical naturalism or materialism.

    I really can't be more clear than anythign I've said and what i said remains...

    It is a violation of true scientific method to say that God DOES not exist. Pure Science cannot be that biased and still remain science.

    That's why I believe science (as we know it today) presupposes atheism.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Froggie,

    You said:"We could exchange quote mines and argue about there meaning in context all day. I'm not going to do that. If I did, I'm not going to again."

    Thanks for that because I'm SURE we all know what's being said and who's saying what. If nothing else, that should be clear by now.

    ReplyDelete
  70. DSHB,

    Here is where you totally corrupt your religious faith.

    "Certainly not to oversimplify, but simply put, many people have never learned or simply choose not to live and walk by faith. In fact the "faith walk" has been so minimized and glossed over by the rank materialism of the modern church that it's a wonder that our youth maintain any significant values as they proceed through life. So in part the focus of life has shifted from faith to materialism:

    Gal. 3:11 ~"But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith."
    and
    2 Cor. 5:7~ "(For we walk by faith, not by sight:)"

    You argue for walking in faith, yet you employ your "rank materialism" constantly to argue evolution..

    You can't have it both ways. Are you going to walk by faith or are you going to use materialism to argue agains 150 years of scientific data that shows that evolution happened?

    It seems you fancy yourself some type of scientific philosopher, then put on your "faith" hat.

    That is internally inconsistent and absurd.

    I hope you know there are many devout Christians that totally trust in the veracity of the ToE, Francis Collins for one.

    When you try to use the science you mock to make your arguments you are stepping in deep doo-doo.

    ReplyDelete
  71. DSHB,

    You have not yet told me how you propose to test empirically for the supernatural.

    You said scientists should be making provisions to test for such things.

    If you devise the test I will run it or see that someone in the proper field will run it.

    ReplyDelete
  72. scott,

    You also said:And what is the Bible? It's a collection of books written by men, who put God's name on them. How do you know that each and every of these books were actually written by God? How do you know they represent God's promises? Because they have God's name on them?...So then why doesn't God take action and set the record straight about the Qu'an? Nor is this a minor issue as Islam the second largest religion after Christianity. If Christianity is true, then they are all going to hell because of a book that God didn't write, but bares his name.


    Now I'm preparing a post on inerrency and I want you to get in that one because that's one of the questions that I address specifically. I did a piece on the Quran/Islam specifically since you bring that book up among others. I believe I address that point specifically also, so look that over, I may address the issue.

    I'm not going into it here because that's way off point, but as it relates to the topic, I understand that noone wants to be misrepresented, not even God. So we agree with that concept for real especially when so much is at stake.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Froggie,

    You said:You argue for walking in faith, yet you employ your "rank materialism" constantly to argue evolution...You can't have it both ways. Are you going to walk by faith or are you going to use materialism to argue agains 150 years of scientific data that shows that evolution happened?

    Froggie, I've just concluded that you're STUPID... You make no sense at all.

    You said:It seems you fancy yourself some type of scientific philosopher, then put on your "faith" hat.

    HATER ALERT! HATER ALERT!

    yOU SAID:"That is internally inconsistent and absurd...I hope you know there are many devout Christians that totally trust in the veracity of the ToE, Francis Collins for one.

    So what there are many atheists who know EXACTLY what I'm talking about also. What does that prove?

    You said:When you try to use the science you mock to make your arguments you are stepping in deep doo-doo.

    I haven't "used" science in any way neither have I said that science is an invaluid discipline, I SAID that science has a atheistic bias which does not lend itslef to discovery of any supernatural premise...

    Please read some of the more recent comments, but I think you already know you don't make sense and are just giving me touble, that's ok too...we'll deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  74. OK.

    I'm stupid.

    How nice of you....Pastor.

    I won't revisit this thread.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Froggie,

    My apologies for writing what I was thinking and I did mean it in jest but that wasn't clear...

    Anyway, that's a good excuse to digress.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Harvey,

    First, when I say there is no evidence that God, I'm specifically referring to this...

    Science cannot say God did anything because God has yet to be proven to exhibit any specific features or abilities. It's like trying to say the answer to 2+400 is something other than a number and calling it mathmatics. This is a category error.

    Furthermore, I can't help but notice you failed to respond to a number of additional points, such as this…

    However, this does not mean that science is unfairly biassed against God. That's like saying science is unfairly biased against the Tooth Fairy, Astrology or Alien Intervention Theory.

    And this....

    My point here is that a large number of phenomenon once thought to be supernatural in nature have been found to be the result of complex natural processes. History has shown this to be true time and time again. The supernatural has continued to shrink at an exponential rate and it shows no sign of reversing.

    You wrote: I propose that evidence is abundant and you simply interpret it with a bias and do not credit what evidence you see to God.

    That's find and dandy, but science isn't faith. That you have faith that God actually exists, is capable of and actually responsible for creating everything we discover isn't science. It's religion.

    God could have only set the entire process in motion, then left it to evolve on it's own. Or God could have abilities but sat by idle as the universe formed completely naturally without his intervention. Or God could exist, but have no abilities. Finally, God might not even exist.

    We simply do not see evidence need to complete this chain of events. Instead, you must use faith instead.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Now on the other hand you CANNOT legitimately say that you see no evidence for God.

    If God is all powerful and all knowing that absolutely anything could be interpreted as evidence for God. Again, I can't help but noticed you ignored…

    The problem is you could say this about absolutely anything. Do hundreds of children contract and die of leukemia because God wants them to? Nor do we know that God even exists or that would want things even if he did. instead, evolution defines a complex process that predicts when and how speculation occurs.

    Is the death of children from leukemia evidence that God exists? Surely, it would be in God's ability, right? If not, then why is anything evidence that God exits?

    For example, Imagine I said I had a magic wand that had infinite powers. It could could bend time and space, change matter in to any other form of matter, travel though time and create life. Given these abilities, absolutely anything could be explained by my magic wand. If fact, if it were true, I could have re-created the universe five minutes ago and given everyone an entire lifetime of false memories. You wouldn't know any better.

    Of course, should I make such a claim I'm sure you'd want proof that my magic wand had the power to actually do any of these thing before accepting it as true, right? However, I could say my magic wand refuse to be tested. Even if I asked it to, it would never allow such an experiment to be conducted. Therefore, you must have faith that my magic wand is actually capable of doing what I claimed it did.

    Clearly, if my magic wand really was as capable of the feats I claimed, then absolutely anything that existed could be evidence of it's abilities. But, since it refuses to be tested, then no such evidence can exist. It's impossible, not to mention highly unlikely.

    We can say the same thing about God. It all boils down to the idea that because you think God likes some things but not others. God does some things but not others. But on what basis have you reached this conclusion? How do you know what actually God wants, likes or dislikes anything, let alone the things you subscribe to him?

    You don't. You hold them as matter of faith.

    I could say that God is actually evil, therefore all of the evil things that happen are God's doing. Allowing goodness is the only way that God can cause the depth of suffering and evil he wants. If people only experienced evil, then they wouldn't know what they are missing.

    Based on this definition of God, then all of the evil in the world (and even all the goodness he allows to occur) would be proof that an evil God exits.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Harvey,

    Just to be clear, I'm not trying to be difficult. If you want to say something to the effect that..

    "Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that suggests evolution is true, I have faith that God created human beings in final form. And I do so because I have faith that the Bible is literal word of God"

    ...that's your prerogative.

    While I don't agree, you have the right to state your beliefs.

    But to suggest there is no evidence for evolution at all is disingenuous at best. The same can be said for your claim that science is unfairly biassed against God.

    Again, science is no more unfairly biased against God than the Tooth Fairy, Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Scott,

    There are basically 2 points you raise.

    1- you said"However, this does not mean that science is unfairly biassed against God. That's like saying science is unfairly biased against the Tooth Fairy, Astrology or Alien Intervention Theory.

    And this....

    My point here is that a large number of phenomenon once thought to be supernatural in nature have been found to be the result of complex natural processes. History has shown this to be true time and time again. The supernatural has continued to shrink at an exponential rate and it shows no sign of reversing.

    You're dealing with what you expect to find if the supernatutral is involved. You expect that the supernatural event will not culminate in natural process being superseeded. You expect to find that a supernatural event is one for which there is no natural process. Now, God could by virtue of him being GOd defy any natural process, however, every miracle culminates in a natural process.

    OK, here's one. Jesus walking on water defies all natural process of what we know about boyoncy laws. OK. That's a miracle.

    Here's the second, Jesus healing a leper or a blind man indicates that the miracle cause the body to function in a way that it normally should.

    Both are miracles. Both are reserved and brought on by God. If the second is examined you'll find body chemistry that works correctly after it was unfunctional, however the point is that it functions after the natural processes. Was it a natural process...NO, it was a miracle. Can it be measured scientifically? The results can but does that mean it wasn't a miracle? Absolutely not. It was.

    So your expectation is off as there are different types of miracles that God preforms for his purposes.

    C.S. Lewis stated it correctly about the immaculate conception, in that why would we expect the seed to perform outside of natural laws when it was implanted? It wouldn't. The miracle is that the seed got there, everything else is a natural function. ie: The evidence that God did what he did.

    I addressed it before but put that puppy to bed it's been addressed.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Hey howdy again Harvey you said..."Gandy,

    Thanks for the concern for the youth but you and atheists in general do them the worst possible harm trying to convert them to atheism."

    Well thats your point of view of course,but just because its your point of view doesnt make it a correct one.

    Many of us think quite the opposite to your opinion on this matter these days,and many many more are agreeing with having a opposite opinion to what you do each and every single day now.

    Unlike you i actually think we do the youth a great favor,as well as the future of society and the world in general.

    Im an agnostic/atheist and while i agree gods or some intelligent design etc cannot yet be quite totally discounted or disregarded,my opinion and the opinion of very many others is its quite foolish and even dangerious to use guess work as can easily be seen has been used by man so far in coming up with all the so very very many dreamed up ideas of who gods might or might not be and what these gods might or might not actually want/expect of us if infact they actually do exist at all.

    Imagine if we had stuck to the old guess work faith plan, of oh the world must be flat...L.o.L ...We would still be fearful of traveling to far out to sea,for fear of being attacked by some sea monster or falling off the edge of the world.....Would this be all that very intelligent? ...Would this faithful guess work be something we should all be suggesting our kids of the year 2009 should continue on with?

    Somehow i dont think so...I dont think its much of a great plan really at all.And im not the only one Harvey my friend.

    If we base our belief on guess faiths and the pure guess work of man,whats to say if maybe there is some god but he`s a god that didnt want people guessing about him hence why he hasnt been around.He might actually be very very blinking unhappy and quite angry at those that have used guess work and fibs and lies hurting very very many folks in the process!!.

    You can laugh at me my friend i dont mind....I actually feel pretty safe im not following what so obviously is only mere faithful guess work of men,which HAS hurt very many folks in the process.even burning some at the stake,for keeping said belief.

    For that reason i think im being both helpful and kind to the youth that they dont just follow faithful folks blindly.Faithful folks who often display their unkindness and uncaring manner,judging folks at will and bringing division and unrest and nastiness to this world in the process.

    To be honest im a little fearful to include myself in the actions of such folks.I rather be judged for admitting i didnt really know for sure...Than be judged for saying i did, when honestly i really know i didnt!!.Atleast i can say im being honest,even if some pastor want to judge me as just wanting to follow evil...Are pastors something to be scared of?.

    See thats why i quick got over that moment of anger i had the other day,heck i not going to let you calling me names like suggesting im a anti-christ worry me to long....Sticks and stones might break my bones Harv, but rubbish names wont really hurt me.And folks including the youth can make up their own mind whether i really do seem to honestly be like some supernatural demon...L.o.L :)

    You going to think differently of course but seems to me the way you get all stroppy over very little quite often,almost seems more like you got some double personality or demon or something .

    Not that i really mind of course because i think its actually quite helpful that people following false faiths act up!, so many folks can see right through them.

    Anyway looks like everyone having real fun here again today...See you been ministering kindly to froggie and told him he simply stupid ..L.o.L

    Ahhh dear, like i alway say Harvey my friend what i do still find i like about you, is you always fun and there hardly ever a very dull moment.

    Take care everyone !

    ReplyDelete
  81. Scott,

    The second thing you suppose is that the nature or goodness of God is arbitrary. this is right out of the Bertrand Russell Handbook. you said:

    Is the death of children from leukemia evidence that God exists? Surely, it would be in God's ability, right? If not, then why is anything evidence that God exits?

    That's Bertrand with a little twist but still Bertrand. The fact is that every good and perfect gift comes from God.

    James 1:17~"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the FATHER OF LIGHTS, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning"

    This indicates two things...1 only good things come from or are a product of God and 2- He is unchanging, therefore bad things (namely evil) doesn't proceed from him and never will proceed from him.

    Now, there are a host of sciptures literalist use to try to debunk that but every one without question does not overturn that statement...the critic says that God killed etc...the problem is that God never approved of sin and set for that the wages of it was death...that was never a new penalty for the transgression of men because transgression ran deeper than actions...but that's another stroy...

    Leukemia is evidence of the problem of sin born in the heart which is a corruptuion of good. It's not person specific, it's human specific and sin reigns through mankind.

    Further, if there was no good health or no "normal" we would not identify leukemia as being bad. We identify the ideal state of health and call leukemia bad because we contrast it against that which is the good and right condition of health.

    So your analogy doesn't contain what's necessary to identify God. GOd is not identified by bad or evil he is identified by good...So in short, everything doesn't point toward God in a direct sense saying that, "there is evil so there is God"

    BTW, I didn't say this: "Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that suggests evolution is true, I have faith that God created human beings in final form. And I do so because I have faith that the Bible is literal word of God"

    I don't believe that there is overwhelming evidence of the truth of evolution and I believe that God created man without any intermediaries. When he created man it was in final form.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Gandy,

    What's up man. You said:Well thats your point of view of course,but just because its your point of view doesnt make it a correct one.

    Neither yours, my friend.

    You said:Many of us think quite the opposite to your opinion on this matter these days,and many many more are agreeing with having a opposite opinion to what you do each and every single day now.

    And still MANY more agree with me and and continue to do so in great numbers. In fact the conversion rate to Christianity still exceeds by far and large the deconversion rate. When all theism is combined atheism is but a pesky drop in the bucket. So believe me Christianity isn't threatened by a worldview that believes in blind chance and randomness and that leads nowhere, and claims that meaningful existence is relative.

    You said:Im an agnostic/atheist and while i agree gods or some intelligent design"

    Smart man

    You said:etc cannot yet be quite totally discounted or disregarded,my opinion and the opinion of very many others is its quite foolish and even dangerious to use guess work as can easily be seen has been used by man so far in coming up with all the so very very many dreamed up ideas of who gods might or might not be and what these gods might or might not actually want/expect of us if infact they actually do exist at all.

    Yes it would be IF you were on your own with God propositions. Thankfully there is a rich and much studies history that exceeds my time and that will continue beyond my time. Then there are other things that just make too much sense to be left by the wayside in kickin' the tires" too much that needs to be accomplished...y'u-know?

    You said: Imagine if we had stuck to the old guess work faith plan, of oh the world must be flat...L.o.L

    That would be bad except for the Bible stated that the earth was a circle (Is. 40:22) ooh about some 3000 years ago I suppose.

    You said:If we base our belief on guess faiths and the pure guess work of man,whats to say if maybe there is some god but he`s a god that didnt want people guessing about him hence why he hasnt been around.

    Well, all I can say is that "guess work' doesn't resemble Christianity, but atheists think that's what faith is...faith is assurance and confidence, not guesswork. In addition the record itself address the concern of men and you insult their integrity (which most don't care about) by saying they were frauds. It goes like this:

    2 Peter 1:16~For we have not followed cunningly DEVISED fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

    This wasn't made up of a matter of guesswork. That issue was addessed 2000 years ago when the gospel was being preached against great persecution and against all odds of it's survival.

    You said:I actually feel pretty safe im not following what so obviously is only mere faithful guess work of men,which HAS hurt very many folks in the process."

    Look, materialism is deceitful. People ar killing themselves even prostituting themselves right now for what they see. That is a work of man. It is always elusive and will continue to be because of sin in flesh. So what you claim is safe is untamed, dangerous and never satisfied. that's the lesson that life teaches and that's the lesson that the youth will learn.

    see 2

    ReplyDelete
  83. 2

    Gandy,

    You said:"For that reason i think im being both helpful and kind to the youth that they dont just follow faithful folks blindly.

    On that one I agree hands down, but i also don't limit that to religious principles. People must know what they are a part of and know the implications of that association. Do we keep something harmful alive by hanging around it? Do we really bring people into the best possible relationships with themselves and others? Those are life qiestions and deserve critical thinking at all levels, and religion is a very important one.

    You said:"I rather be judged for admitting i didnt really know for sure"

    WHen God has spoken I'm not afraid to stand for truth. it comes down to this, either you believe or you don't. Equivocation is for the faithearted. If God is god then serve him, unremorsefully and unrepentently. he deserves no less than all of us.

    You said:"even if some pastor want to judge me as just wanting to follow evil...Are pastors something to be scared of?.

    What did God call Jeremiah to do? be nice to the puppies and feed the cats??? NO...this is what he said:

    Jeremiah 1:10~"See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and TO THROW DOWN, to build, and to plant.

    Delivring souls from bondage isn't a passe job...it's tough and true pastors got to go where others won't go because they value their reps too much. when I'm finished sometyhing is on your mind...I'm just the vessel, but God is the one speaking and challenging your thoughts...I'm the one that breaks up and stirs up the issues so that you can hear God. I'm certainly not the only one by a long shot and many are much better than I'll ever be, but there is none better in sincerity and none more open both to God and what we experience as people. I have just decided to go for broke my friend, I've got nothing to loose by following God through Jesus Christ, I've never been a quitter in my life and as I look back my life has gained immensely as a result. That may be interpreted as arrogance by some, but what it is, is that I know my place and my call and both are beyond me...and I SINCERELY mean that.

    You said:"heck i not going to let you calling me names like suggesting im a anti-christ worry me to long

    OK get over it all ready...I'm sorry OK?-LOL I hurt your feelings, but in all seriousness, do you think I hurt your as much as you hurt God's by walking away from him? Men certainly have done you wrong, but that's like slapping the cat 'cause the dog bit you...they don't add up my friend.

    You said:You going to think differently of course but seems to me the way you get all stroppy over very little quite often,almost seems more like you got some double personality or demon or something.

    LOL-LOL-LOL!!!

    You said:"Anyway looks like everyone having real fun here again today...See you been ministering kindly to froggie and told him he simply stupid ..L.o.L

    LOL-LOL-LOL- He was...but I repented-LOL!!!

    You said:"Ahhh dear, like i alway say Harvey my friend what i do still find i like about you, is you always fun and there hardly ever a very dull moment."

    You said that right...you know I'm laughin like crazy right now right-LOL!!!

    ReplyDelete
  84. Harv said ... "Look, materialism is deceitful. People ar killing themselves even prostituting themselves right now for what they see. That is a work of man. It is always elusive and will continue to be because of sin in flesh. So what you claim is safe is untamed, dangerous and never satisfied. that's the lesson that life teaches and that's the lesson that the youth will learn."

    This we can agree on i agree its work of man and man of religious faith is at the very forefront and helm of much of it as he has also always been.They have moved into places where once the family unit was what mattered the most,and spread their materialistic attitude disolving much of the community and family bonds in the process.The messiahs the popes the Benny Hinns the pastors etc of this world sure dont mind giving a well rehearsed speech on sunday as long as the collection box is filled.Sure they offset how it looks by doing this here and there and saying oh im wonderful looky here we sent some money over there.Can you rub my back now please.

    But that doesnt fix or replace what they have taken away by division in society caused by use of their fine rehearsed speeches and threats of hell from old books for those who they suggest will go there should they not be prepared to follow like sheep.It doesnt replace the division of family and society at large caused by faith book writers and priestly men who made such use of olden age superstiotious minds,telling them stuff like oh and look this book here say Jesus said this he said he didnt come to bring folks together(as a ploy for why they should see themselves being divided)...So if i say you need to shun your family and excommunicate you better do so or you will end up in hell.(wella! the old tried and trusted divide and rule trick works again)

    All the rest you quote from some written words of men.You quote it over and over like all the popes and pastors etc before you did and still do today.You quote it like if you quote it its then become some scientific evidence.You quote it as if just quoting it makes it some factual evidence.You say looky here in Jeremiah it say!, just like the cult masters of the dark ages used to also do to keep their pet sheep all tything nicely.

    You quote the bible as if man could never ever be thought to have ever doctored it up to suit.

    And then you would have us believe for sure that it totally unquestionable and we putting our faith and trust only in some god for sure,when even now know we all the time finding out how folks of faith like those folks of faith of old are not really people we can be so very sure we can always fully trust.

    When we still find lost tribes even today hidden in huge forest places what do we find with these people who are without complicated confused edited and added on to and re edited again to suit faith beliefs books dreamed up by men looking to have power and control etc??.

    WHAT WE DO FIND is humans who still live in the year 2009 without materialistic values and attitudes.Who dont have many problems with prostitutes and thieves and murders etc.Who mostly live in peace and harmony.

    So my friend you can read any speech you like from your old faith book,but i still think evidence suggests its mostly not so correct.And i still see absolutely no reason to be so afraid of at least getting the youth of today to think open mindedly.

    By the way im glad! you happy Harvey happy is a good thing ..It saves on frown lines and wrinkles

    ReplyDelete
  85. BTW, I didn't say this: "Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that suggests evolution is true, I have faith that God created human beings in final form. And I do so because I have faith that the Bible is literal word of God"

    I don't believe that there is overwhelming evidence of the truth of evolution and I believe that God created man without any intermediaries. When he created man it was in final form.


    First, I'm aware that you did not say this. This was not my claim.

    Second, there are subtile differences between my suggested response and your actual response.

    For example, I could say there is overwhelming evidence that makes it appear a man is guilty of a crime, but I have faith that he is innocent. Despite the overwhelming evidence, the man could have been framed so only appeared that he was guilty. Or the circumstances could have been such that the events only made it strongly appear that the man was actually involved in the crime.

    To say this doesn't mean I think the man is guilty, it only indicates an acceptance of the fact that there is overwhelming evidence which strongly suggests he is not innocent. In doing this, I would only acknowledge the clearly obvious nature of the situation. To suggest otherwise would be to deny what is right in front of me and I would be acting in an intellectually dishonest way.

    Furthermore, if I pretended there was no evidence, it's likely I would take no further action to actually prove the man was innocent, as I would think it was unnecessary. However, since the evidence actually makes it appear otherwise, the man would likely be falsely convicted. It's only when I accept the overwhelming evidence is a problem and act accordingly to reveal the truth, would the man be acquitted.

    Another example could be that one might find themselves in a life or death situation where the odds are impossible they would survive, such as a plane crash in the Arctic Circle. However, one could say that, despite impossible odds, their faith that God is all powerful leads them to believe they will be rescued. To do so would only recognize the reality of their current situation, as individuals cannot survive exposure in the extreme sub-zero temperatures of the arctic before a rescue team could be dispatched and reach their position. But, if one has faith that God is all powerful, then it would be possible for God to somehow protect them from the elements until the rescue team managed to arrived.

    However, in the case of evolution, you've continually claimed that there is NO evidence that suggests it is true. Clearly, this is disingenuous at best. By ignoring the the reality of the situation you essentially prevent people from taking your opinions seriously.

    Again, my suggestion is to acknowledge the appearance of overwhelming evidence, but say that you have faith that it was God who caused human beings to appear in final form.

    To deny this is the equivalent of denying that an individual would normally freeze to death before a human rescue team could arrive.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Harvey wrote: You're dealing with what you expect to find if the supernatutral is involved. You expect that the supernatural event will not culminate in natural process being superseeded. You expect to find that a supernatural event is one for which there is no natural process. Now, God could by virtue of him being GOd defy any natural process, however, every miracle culminates in a natural process.

    Harvey, the problem here is that the logical possibility of the existence of the supernatural has not been confirmed. Just because you can imagine an all powerful, all knowing, non-material being doesn't mean he actually exists.

    Both are miracles. Both are reserved and brought on by God.

    You seem to have missed my analogy.

    Remember, if my magic wand is really capable of the feats I claimed, then all of these supernatural events could also be "evidence" of MY actions. Again, I've claimed my magic wand allows me to travel though time, control matter at the subatomic level and create life. If this were true, it would allow me to have caused these events to occur.

    These are the kinds of events you expect to find if my magic wand really was magic.

    However, should my magic wand NOT have these abilities, then they would not be evidence. And I'm guessing you would not accept these events as evidence without proof that my magic wand actually had these abilities. Right?

    As with my magic wand, God refuses to be tested. Therefore, there is no evidence that God actually has any abilities at all, let alone that God exits. (We at least know that things called "magic wands" exist, as you can buy them at magic stores)

    So, your claim that there is evidence for God hinges on your faith that he exists and has supernatural powers.

    Just as my claim that there is evidence that my magic wand can perform amazing feats hinges on it's ability to actually do anything I've claimed it can do.

    As such, neither claims are scientific in nature

    ReplyDelete
  87. Harvey wrote Leukemia is evidence of the problem of sin born in the heart which is a corruptuion of good. It's not person specific, it's human specific and sin reigns through mankind.

    Again, the problem here is this depends on your definition of God. If you think God is good, then all of the good things that happen in the universe are caused by God. But should one should think God is evil, then all of the bad things are caused by God.

    What you need to show is....

    - Evidence that God actually exists
    - Evidence that God is really good
    - Evidence that God has abilities to cause good things to happen and punish people for sin
    - Evidence that God actually used said abilities to cause good things to happened and punish people for sin

    Without this, nothing is evidence for God's existence because nothing would NOT be evidence of God's existence.

    Instead, all we have are claims based on faith.

    It's the same with my magic wand example. I intentionally gave the wand properties that allowed me to do anything logically possible. As such, there could be no event that it could not account for. NONE. This was by design. Furthermore, I claimed that the wand would never allow itself to be tested. Again, this was by design. It's a strategy similar to that used in theism.

    Again, that God could be actually responsible for anything requires him to actually exist and actually have the abilities you claim he has.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Gandy,

    You said:"The messiahs the popes the Benny Hinns the pastors etc of this world sure dont mind giving a well rehearsed speech on sunday as long as the collection box is filled."

    What you are doing is stereotyping and doing that without warrant. In many cases that was historry, but in many more that type of thing is not and was not. There are a lot of good preachers and leaders who do it right everyday, I won't allow you to place everyone in the same boat that's not even real.

    In addition, you seem to think religion is the bain of existence on earth, but the studies show that most of the world is not religious or at least Christian. So what does your numners mean? It means that you conveniently skip over or minimize atrocities that occur among the non religious in favor of atrocities amongst them claiming religion and that's TOTALLY obtuse, unfair and unreasonable.

    The facts are that religion, expecially the Christian religion, has done more good and continues to do more good than any of it's rivals including atheism.

    So the worlds ills are not laid at the feet of Christianity, they are properly laid at the bankrupt hearts of men and mankind.

    You said:"But that doesnt fix or replace what they have taken away by division in society"

    When has society ever been unified? With the exception of Pre-Babel, you draw a picture of the world that only exists in your mind.

    This also speaks to another point. In the world of relative morality (such as yours) there is no absolute truth so truth can be moved or changed to establish whater wend you desire. What's wrong today may not be wrong tomorrow. In the world of God's absolutes there are truths that exist at all times. I certainly don't apologize for that, in fact the problem with the world is revolving and evolving morality, no standards of right and wrong and truth and morality. This comes straight out of the atheist camps and IT has damaged the world beyond proportions. You choosing their own brand of morality and picking it up and putting it dowm when they are ready or when they want to. That's the sickening illness by which our communities are effected.

    Whatever divides us from wrong is GOOD. No matter who's hurt. If it's good, morally right, and above reproach, that should be engraciated. Atheism has done that damage and provided the lazy platform upon which much of the denagration of modern society has occurred.

    One example. I look at my children. They need to know right and wrong, what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. The need discipline and clear direction. Some of that DIVIDES them from their friends. Guess what? that's a good things because some that wanted to be their friends are not "friendship" quality. In a relativistic world such as your's not only with the other kids be doomed, mine would too, trying to be pleasing to everyone.

    No...I don't let you build a new bridge and call it equal with Christian values, they are NOT. Not by a long shot.

    See. 2

    ReplyDelete
  89. 2

    Gandy,

    You said:"caused by use of their fine rehearsed speeches and threats of hell from old books for those who they suggest will go there should they not be prepared to follow like sheep."

    The ONLY thing that will send anyone to hell is unbelief. From that root all behaviors flow. Some more and some less, but unbelief is the key. Why? because God has placed the light of truth in every man, but some (all too many) have put the light out. These things are in your control, but yet many choos not to live in the truth. reestablish their own brand of right based on their own premises. Only Christ premisies are lasting and have endured the test of time. Those are the one's strong upon which nations and families are built.

    You said:"All the rest you quote from some written words of men."

    No my friend, the word of God IS NOT a product of men. By your discourse you prove what men produce is temporary, changing and confused. The word of God is not so. It is lasting and demonstrably a product of God. It's beyond the men who wrote it. It's fulfilled in real time by the fulfilling of prophecy, harmonious in message and the center of it is clear, man's reconciliation to God. The bible has proven to be not only remarkable in what it says, also beautiful in the way ot says it. There weren't litary art students who wrote as god spoke through human agencey. They were people, who met a very real God and dared to be different because of it.

    You said:"You quote it like if you quote it its then become some scientific evidence."

    What I quote is ABOVE any science of men and mankind. What I quote speks from HIM not about him or after his trail as science does.

    You say:"You quote it as if just quoting it makes it some factual evidence.You say looky here in Jeremiah it say!, just like the cult masters of the dark ages used to also do to keep their pet sheep all tything nicely."

    To a novice your trant sounds soo accurate, but you and anyone who agrees with you have never studied cults that you claim Christianity is. Cults doen's want to be seen. Christians say look at us, read our book, examine me (As Jesus said) This is open to the world, not a trick, but it'll trick you up and confuse you if you approach it with contempt. That's what I see in you and most athesits. You get out of it what you oput in...contempt. You dishonor God, disrespect his word, what do you expect to receive in return?

    That's really interesting, atheist expectations are only self-centered ones. You want what will satisfy YOU and will not render what will satisfy God. That's a trip and the more I see, the more I understand what Calvin was saying whe he talked about Total Depravity.

    You said:"You quote the bible as if man could never ever be thought to have ever doctored it up to suit."

    maybe that's because we can use the science of historical literary criticism and find that the bible "hasn't been doctored to suit". Maybe it's because the best experts and most critical scholars have looked at the record and only found minimal (at best) instances in which there was doctoring...In other words, your argument has no teeth. You can say anything, but I think instead of being drawn into sensationalism, set forth FACTS, or at least inforamtion absed on the best possible information available. This is one thing for which there are ample facts available to support the veracity of scripture. I guess you're a Dan Brown wanna be now huh?-LOL

    See 3

    ReplyDelete
  90. 3

    Gandy,

    You said:WHAT WE DO FIND is humans who still live in the year 2009 without materialistic values and attitudes."

    No there are none that don't place their best interest at hear FIRST. None like Jesus and none like his followers that give their lives for others. So what exceptions there are, are just that among the unsaved exceptions...

    You said:Who dont have many problems with prostitutes and thieves and murders etc.Who mostly live in peace and harmony.

    Once again you're dreaming and in lala land...most criminals that I know are not practicing Christains. In fact most either don't go to church or have never been to church. The ones that do, say that the church and religion had nothing to do with their criminal activity. You know what does? The materialism of the heart or some situation that they undertook.

    Your representation of humanity is ridiculous. As a black man, having been discriminated against for NO REASON other than skin color, but nonChristians. One thing I can say, in 29 years of being saved, I've never had a white Christian discriminate against me. i know it happens but that's not my story. We may disagree and have debate about issues, but only the godless, have been the guilty parties.

    So my only contention is that you have a radical representation of Christians and Christianity that is unwarranted and obtuse. Then the evidence and my experience, as well as the expereience of many doesn't match up.

    So if you want to tell the story, tell it with balance. be responsible. Christianity has long been responsible for most of the good that we experience in this country anyway and throughout history. I'm not ashamed to say so and I'm glad to be a Christian, the world is made MUCH better because of it.

    ReplyDelete
  91. BTW,

    Bible quotes, that's what you get around here, because it's valid and is the word of God. NOT of men.

    Romans 1:16~For I AM NOT ASHAMED of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek


    2 Timothy 1:12~For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I AM NOT ASHAMED: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Scott,

    You said:"Harvey, the problem here is that the logical possibility of the existence of the supernatural has not been confirmed."

    Confirmed by who Scott? It's certainly be confirmed by me and millions throughout the centuries. You don't care about that...look that's the conclusion to that matter as far as I'm concerned. You overlooking it and calling it not valid is only radical atheistic garbage. You can't discount the personal experiences of millions and even billions of people.

    However that proves the point, that's atheistic science. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT or AUTHORITY to make the conclusion you do. They are UNSCIENTIFIC.

    Also your "magic wand" is not viable because God doesn't use MAGIC. Miracles aren't magic so those things have nothing to do with it. Magic can do nothing. God by his supernatural intervention can do all.

    Aside from that you are claiming because God cannot be tested thus opening the possibility that he is false or not God then God can't exist...That's ridiculous!

    I already said that what you see in science is the TRACK or FOOTPRINT of God. science cannot contain God as his set of principles are higher than science and what we know. So your method is wholly inadequate in measuring him, however YOU HAVE NO RIGHT to impose that he does not exist...to do so is unscientific...

    MUCH of science (for the 200th time) is UNTESTABLE and cannot be proven to be false either. However there are evidences that provide certain proofs such as the "Big Bang" not many scientist deny it right...but it has never been and cannot be proved...

    So one again you make a case of special pleading to apply an obtuse standard to God, simply because you can't see him. You can't see the :big bang" either but you don't do the same. You only see the results...Guess what?

    Much (not all) of what we see in science are ONLY the RESULTS of what God has done. Why make a special pleading and insist that he doesn't exist, you DON'T say that about big bang cosmology...

    Once again this is atheistic overreach and the overarching premise of atheism in science.

    Now, you've spent a lot of time trying to assert your premise and I believe all premises you set forth have been refuted both on philosophical and scientific grounds. A repackaging of the arguments does the arguments no more justice.

    Once again, go back to what i;m arguing instead of what you want to argue, because the two are mutually exclusive:

    Science presupposes atheism because it makes statements that are beyond what it is designed to do and because it assumes a priori of the metaphysical world without and apart from any consideration of the supernatural world.

    Further, because God cannot be measured by science does not give science a reasonable basis to conclude that he doesn't exist. That's an overreaching premise that is unscientific. That's the problem with your premise.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Scott,

    The problem is that YOU think that God is out in the "clear blue yonder" and hasn't communicated to man. The short of the long is that he has and he is ever present.

    Isaiah 48:3-5~I have declared the former things FROM THE BEGINNING; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did [them] suddenly, and they came to pass. 4-Because I knew that thou [art] obstinate, and thy neck [is] an iron sinew, and thy brow brass; 5-I have even from the beginning declared [it] to thee; before it came to pass I shewed [it] thee: lest thou shouldest say, Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image, hath commanded them.

    God's instructions and word hasn't been hidden from man. So he hasn't been hidden.

    In your world IF there is a GOd he's was developed after mankind came to conscious existence. That's not a scientific premise either. that's a philosophical point of view for which science is ill equipped to deduce.

    As stated, atheism does not have the right to teach mataphysical naturalism through science. All it is is anti-religious propaganda in far too many settings and that's unwarranted...

    Do you or any atheist have the NERVE to say that science should be religiously neutral? That's ALL i want to know from you.

    Further efforts to rationalize it are only efforts to run away from the truth..science DOES presuppose atheism.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Froggie said to Pastor Harvey "It seems you fancy yourself some type of scientific philosopher, then put on your "faith" hat.
    That is internally inconsistent and absurd.
    I hope you know there are many devout Christians that totally trust in the veracity of the ToE, Francis Collins for one."


    So? There are many devout christians that don't believe the Bible. There are many devout christians that don't believe Jesus is the only way. There are many devout christians that are counting on their good works for salvation.

    We walk by faith, yes. But we don't ignore the evidence that's in our favor, as you would have us do, lol.

    Froggie, I hope you can see how absurd your comment was on Pastor Harvey's faith. It appears you are weakening and grasping at straws.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Harvey wrote: Confirmed by who Scott? It's certainly be confirmed by me and millions throughout the centuries. You don't care about that...look that's the conclusion to that matter as far as I'm concerned

    Harvey,

    Then perhaps you can explain this?

    Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

    If it has been confirmed, then faith would not be necessary.

    However that proves the point, that's atheistic science. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT or AUTHORITY to make the conclusion you do. They are UNSCIENTIFIC.

    And you have the right and authority to redefine science?

    Again, saying God is scientific is like saying 2+4 equals something other than a number and calling it math.

    Also your "magic wand" is not viable because God doesn't use MAGIC. Miracles aren't magic so those things have nothing to do with it. Magic can do nothing. God by his supernatural intervention can do all.

    All you've done is continue to make assertions without showing how they are any more valid that my magic wand example. I guess you can't actually address my argument, or you don't understand it as this is an obvious attempt to avoid the issue.

    If it has been confirmed that "God by his supernatural intervention can do all.", then you should have no problem showing this is actually true though repeated and methodical examples.

    When can I expect to see these demonstrations? In what kind of environment will they be performed? What kind of instruments will you use to detect God's actual involvement in each and every instance. I'm sure the entire scientific community would be interested as well.

    Science is no more unfairly biases to God that it is to Alien Intervention Theory and astrology. Even Behe admitted under oath that, for ID to be accepted as science, the definition of science would have to be change to admit Astrology.

    Of course, since astrology conflicts with your religious views you'd want it excluded from of science, correct? And you probably rant and rave, claiming we'd have no right to INCLUDE it in science, correct?

    How is this not your own personal bias? How is this not hypocrisy?

    This is the crux of the issue, which you continually ignore.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Post1

    Hi Harvey how are things today you say..."I won't allow you "

    Harvey what you think you going to allow and not allow is no longer any athourity that very very many people including myself accept today.The day of the scary bogy man of religious superstition faith is nearing being long gone.Sure you still got a number of relics who still follow like puppys,and whenever you arrive they still fuss around you incase they worry their souls might be lost.With these relics what you say (you will allow) and dont allow maybe still holds some authority.

    But we not worried about those folks, we not stupid we know some folks are not ever likely to change even if theres fact sitting right in front of their noses.

    Its mostly the youth and others and the future we look towards,we not so interested in changing relics of the past my friend.What would we ever likely gain from trying to change past history?.

    By what i see you write here lots i feel i can tell you still really feel/believe, that the faith bosses still really hold the power like they used to.Like the Indian medicine man of old,rattling his bead bound chicken bones and rolling his wide eyes trying to quickly scare everyone into submission.

    Just thought id point that fact out a little that times actually been moving on,just incase you had not even realized it at all.Most of us just dont look to see what faith bosses will or wont allow us anymore.

    You say.."When has society ever been unified? With the exception of Pre-Babel, you draw a picture of the world that only exists in your mind."

    (First we need to put any dreams of complete perfection aside,those are but fairytale dreams of faith books.)The bible itself also tells us this dream of total perfection is rubbish.

    Then we look back at countries such as even here in NZ before being colonized by new people many who brought the christian faith along with them, then proceeding to inforce it upon the original inhabitants.

    Before this colonization happened though some tribes at the odd time did squabble fight and war,much more often they tried to live in harmony and peace more because in reality it did benefit them all to try to do so.They before the colonization luckily had no christian faith trying to cause them to shun seperate and withdraw from each other.They had fights only for normal human reasons,not because they fears some place called hell if they refused to seperate from certain people like the faith bosses told them they needed to.

    I could name many places where the phenomenon of division and strife and breakdown of community and country by progression of the christian faith etc played a very very big part,but i save that energy for people such as the youth because i know with them its at least worthwhile as they are at least (open minded) to at least give it some (honest) thought before just simply poo pooing it.

    I still think maybe im likely to be nick named willy long before silly my friend,i know when i am and when im not talking to somebody just simply fighting hard for he`s pay package no matter what the actual truth be.

    We see signs still today of worldwide efforts for folks and countries to get together to try to unite more and bring more peace worldwide....(We also often see how often its the religious faith of folks that hinders it most from possibilities of happening).

    If you were able to take a (honest peak) Harv,you will also find up to date information available that shows statistics to prove that the less religion there is in countries correlates with the more happiness and less problems also.

    I have all this information and fact available at my hands when im out there discussing with youth and folks who at least still have open minds.It really dont matter so much if you try telling some folk differently.It just dont matter so much if you sit there and say "oh i wont allow it" either.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Post2

    You say..."In the world of relative morality (such as yours) there is no absolute truth so truth can be moved or changed to establish whater wend you desire. What's wrong today may not be wrong tomorrow. In the world of God's absolutes there are truths that exist at all times. I certainly don't apologize for that, in fact the problem with the world is revolving and evolving morality, no standards of right and wrong and truth and morality. This comes straight out of the atheist camps and IT has damaged the world beyond proportions."

    Oh yeah... christianity is just so full of this absolute moral that never ever change,which is why they needed to write a whole new load of gibberish in the second testament.So folks didnt stick with the old absolute moral of this supposed god which had folks at the time stoning their people to death for instance.And lots more changed too between the first and second testament why?,well you will try fooling folks it was because of god changing his mind.But the reality is these so called absolute morals of christians and their mythical gods,in real honesty and reality are just not always so absolute like they try fooling folks to believe.

    Harvey you can dream all you like that your faith can revolve around absolutes,but like i say thankfully there is still many open minded folk out there in this world including youth!! who seek real honest truth! not just old rhetoric and meme`s recited over and over again by pastors etc maybe worried they might lose their job in future or something.

    And the very silly bit is, its actually the closed minded folks that will cause (themselves) to become like the dodo bird in the end.There is still a place for them,but maybe not if they so very very keen on making themselves to look and seem so stubborn and blind and even foolish.

    You keep telling us faithful folks did this and that...Using it against folks like me.

    Im not worried Harv ...Im out there reminding folks how you use it against non believers...Reminding them to not give to faith charities any more,but to give instead to secular charity...Reminding them to complain hard out when OUR governments give OUR tax money also too to faith groups.Its fine if the government give faith folks tax money back to them,but not ours.And looking at how faith is in fast decline thats bound to get much less in future.Which is good cause we shouldnt ALL help folks who so keen to seperate us.

    I make sure to point them to where you and others abuse our past kindness in having also given to faith charities in the past.

    Its all about education and knowledge Harv.You present the evidence of abusing our past kindnesses of giving to faith charities.I copy that blatant knowledge, and then pass it on to folks worldwide so they become more educated and might decide they might like to change their attitude towards abusive folks such as yourself by no longer supporting biggoted folks of faiths charities.

    Simple maths Harvey...1+1=2

    Anyway everyone hope you all have another mighty fine day like im going to.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Scott,

    You said:If it has been confirmed, then faith would not be necessary.

    False premise that doesn't work in any way like this in real life. Atheists don't like to admit it but they like everyone else use faith all the time. they change the wording to "reasonable actions" or something to the effect.

    You have faith that your car will start when you turn the key in the morning or whenever you drive it...you have faith that loved ones will make right decisions through the day and keep themselves from harm...you have faith that your employer will like your work and keep you employed...Are ANY of those things unreal because you have faith in them?

    They are absolutely real they are absolutely tangible and there is no doubt in you mind that they exist...why partially because you can see them, but you have no guarantee that any of the things that I mention will live up to your expectation...THAT'S FAITH.

    So your definition is not the definition of any sort of biblical faith. We have faith in God that we don't see but we have an assurance of his realness. That's not in question. The only question a Christian has is "how" it will turn out. Not "if"

    Hebrews 6:19~Which [hope] we have as an anchor of the soul, BOTH SURE and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;

    Our faith is a sure and confident one, not a wishful thinking sort of worldly hope as you suppose...that has nothing to do with biblical faith.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Scott,

    You said:"And you have the right and authority to redefine science?

    And neither is your definition of it CORRECT...So what?

    You said:"Again, saying God is scientific is like saying 2+4 equals something other than a number and calling it math."

    You're obviously fixated on making me say something that I haven't said, I've handled this the whole post but yet you continue, please think what you will, I'll try no further regardin that, I've made it plain and all too simple.

    You said:" When can I expect to see these demonstrations? In what kind of environment will they be performed? What kind of instruments will you use to detect God's actual involvement in each and every instance. I'm sure the entire scientific community would be interested as well."

    scott miracles occur all the time and all you can do is see the aftereffects and say measure that. Your science is adequate in measuring the acts of God it can only measure the results...I've said that OVER AND OVER and you can't seem to get it, why? because you've nevver heard it and it's foriegn language to you...Obviously nobody has ever taken time to really explain teh book to you nor the God that we serve taht defies most everything you belive and hold dear. When a person's life and belif system is uprooted they are reluctant to give up, that's what we all see in you...Christians reading this see a person that won't sureender because your world is tore up at the TRUTH.

    It's plain and simple, science, presupposes atheism and THAT'S not a scientific principle and has NOTHING to do with science, it's a philosophical bias called metaphysical naturalism that excludes the possibility of miracles and God, BEFORE and sort of investigation can begin...

    It's really that simple but you won't quit...your world and what you thought was nice and orderly isn't according to your head knowledge, there a totally new dimension taht you, in your blindness, overlook and can't identify....It's really that simple.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Scott,

    You said:Science is no more unfairly biases to God that it is to Alien Intervention Theory and astrology.

    Oooh, YES it is when it tells me that God doesn't exist or that (in the case of evolution) man descended from a common ancestor along with an ape...NO, man was a creation of God like an ape is also a creation of God. When science ventures into that area and says that their 'theory" is fact as I have proven that the proponents say in this thread, they have ventured into areas unsupported by evidence and are regurgitating metaphysical naturalist dogmas that don't have a scientific basis for what they are trying to communicate.

    Plain and simple.

    Yiou said:"Of course, since astrology conflicts with your religious views you'd want it excluded from of science, correct?

    When will you understand? Anything that doesn't make or extend a worldview or dogma, if it's science is OK. As long as astrology doesn't lead to reading the future or other things that go along with mysticism, it's a valid study. In fact we can only know the dates of certain historical events through the study of astrology. I can't get your hang up and you're being very unreasonable.

    And the rest of your rants are things you impose and I've never said...Anyway...

    ReplyDelete
  101. Gandy,

    You said:"Harvey what you think you going to allow and not allow is no longer any athourity that very very many people including myself accept today.

    Gandy I have COMPLETE control of this board and I will allow what I wish over here...when I get triered of you I'll simply delete you and move on. This isn't a place for you to Tee off and the church without being challenged your assertion are ridiculous and you really make very little sense in the end, but I'll allow it "for now"...

    You said:"But we not worried about those folks, we not stupid we know some folks are not ever likely to change even if theres fact sitting right in front of their noses.

    That's certainly what I believe and when the truth of the Gospel sits next to the LIES of atheism and the utter confusion of agnosticism, people will make a descision for the gospel all day long as they have for over 2000 years. With or without my help.

    You said:Most of us just dont look to see what faith bosses will or wont allow us anymore.

    What happens is like a mouse you fall into the trap of getting with praying people and presenting your ideologies in a forum based upon the power of a supernatural God. What will happen is that these points we discuss will stay with you far beyond these conversation and God will do his work in your life and spirit whuich you have surpressed. you've already admitted you 'just don't know" by claiming agniosticism. what you don't know GOd will deal with...that's faith.

    What people wanted when they came to America was RELIGIOUS freedom not atheism...It's still rejected today just in case you didn't know.

    You said:If you were able to take a (honest peak) Harv,you will also find up to date information available that shows statistics to prove that the less religion there is in countries correlates with the more happiness and less problems also."

    Present a few studies ( just one will do)and I'll certainly be glad to look at them until then you need to study Vox Day called The Irrational Atheist...No matter what the clowns at rational response say, it handles you guy's view of the world pretty adequately. In addition stuudies show that what you claim really isn't accurate.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Gandy,

    You said:Oh yeah... christianity is just so full of this absolute moral that never ever change,

    Certainly it is...it's always been wrong to steal, murder and committ adultery etc...those things haven' cahnged, whereas we're living in a culture tha says there are "reasons" for certain actions and people shouldn't be held accountable for certain things.

    You said:"which is why they needed to write a whole new load of gibberish in the second testament."

    You just like to say silly and unreasonable things... do you, but don't exopect to get by with it for long over here.

    You asked:"And lots more changed too between the first and second testament why?"

    FOR NO REASON other than Jesus and what HE did...it's called GRACE and MERCY which was presnet on the OT and revealed in the New...that's teh ONLY reason.

    You said:"well you will try fooling folks it was because of god changing his mind."

    One thing that's clearly affirmed in both the OT and the NT is that God is unchanging. So your sentiment is inaccurate. What GOd does is reveal various aspects of his nature. In the OT there was no propitiation of sin, just a revealing of it. In the NT Jesus became sin for us and a substitutionary atonement for the sins of the world. So there's a big difference.

    You said:"Harvey you can dream all you like that your faith can revolve around absolutes,but like i say thankfully there is still many open minded folk out there in this world including youth!!"

    Let';s see, what has atheism EVER done for humanity and moral values? it hasn't added to the sense of morality because morality is already established BEFORE it's rise...atheism, very rarely has done anything to better the condition of humanity...really atheism is sort of a leach...it rides of the accolades of the church and what the church has successfully done through generations and claims that it has some "better path" to follow...it's really hillarious, when you think about it. Atheism is a sort of armchair quarterback, that's never played the game and then in a pickup game plays like he's in the professional leagues only it's really in his mind...that's atheism.

    You said:"And the very silly bit is, its actually the closed minded folks that will cause (themselves) to become like the dodo bird in the end."

    I'll give you that..,.you're mind is soo open ANYTHING can flow through it and EVERYTHING has fallen out... Now that the truth.

    You stated"...making themselves to look and seem so stubborn and blind and even foolish.

    To do right these days one needs to be stubborn...resist foolishness stubbornly...That's the example our children need and if one ever hold a gun to your face and threatens you with it, you'll be glad I was teaching them to stubbornly do the right thing in life and no bow or yield to every foolish idea that comes along.

    You said:"Reminding them to not give to faith charities any more,but to give instead to secular charity

    And NOTHING will get done and it'll all end in scandals if Christian people aren't actively engaged in those charities...there are plenty of secular crooks to go around...4 sure.

    I guess when you have no retort for the current argument you go off on benges like you do. I'll end it soon enough I guess.

    BTW: EVERYDAY with Jesus is sweeter that the day before!

    ReplyDelete
  103. On thing I find interesting in Vox Day's book, The Irrational Atheist he says tha atheism predates Christianity by 400 years dating back to Plato in "apology" in 399 BC.(pg. 7)

    The interesting thing is that atheism is like the little engine that could...it's trying so hard for so long and not making any sense or progress. the New atheists think they have so much going for their arguments and approach with such a new fervor only it's meaningless and powerless...He states on pg. 8 that for 278 years athesist have been singing the fight song that our friend Gandy espouses waiting for the day when religion is done away with, and reverberating the same "I see no miracles, I hear no miracles, I speak no miracles" that Scott has been pouting about too. It's really interesting to see...

    Sad shame to waste so much energy on something that states, you die, you rot and that's it at least in most cases because Barna did a poll and some atheists think they'll even go to heaven too-LOL

    ReplyDelete
  104. I wrote: You said:Science is no more unfairly biases to God that it is to Alien Intervention Theory and astrology.

    Harvey wrote: Oooh, YES it is when it tells me that God doesn't exist or that (in the case of evolution) man descended from a common ancestor along with an ape...NO, man was a creation of God like an ape is also a creation of God.

    Harvey, go back and read my statement again. I'm afraid you either failed to comprehend it or you're trying to avoid the elephant in the room.

    I'm comparing a supposed bias of science against God to a supposed bias against Alien Intervention Theory or Astrology. I'm saying that, should science be unfairly biased against God, then it would also be unfairly biased against a vast number of other non-scientific ideas that you reject.

    You're claim of a lack of "fairness" in science is clearly disingenuous as it only extends to the beliefs you personally hold.

    When will you understand? Anything that doesn't make or extend a worldview or dogma, if it's science is OK. As long as astrology doesn't lead to reading the future or other things that go along with mysticism, it's a valid study. In fact we can only know the dates of certain historical events through the study of astrology. I can't get your hang up and you're being very unreasonable.

    I'm being unreasonable?

    Are you actually trying to suggest the claim that "God did it" does not "make or extend a world view or dogma?" Really?

    When you say… As long as astrology doesn't lead to reading the future or other things that go along with mysticism, it's a valid study.

    You essentially said.. As long as astrology doesn't conflict with my religious beliefs, it's a valid study.

    Supernatural claims that agree with your religious beliefs are OK, but supernatural claims that conflict with your religious viewer should be EXCLUDED.

    Again, this is clearly hypocrisy on your part.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Scott,

    You said:I'm comparing a supposed bias of science against God to a supposed bias against Alien Intervention Theory or Astrology. I'm saying that, should science be unfairly biased against God, then it would also be unfairly biased against a vast number of other non-scientific ideas that you reject"

    I understand what you're saying and I guess if I were making the claim that God MUST be included in scientific reasoning and postulations, I would agree with you, but I'm saying teh opposite...neither God nor atheistic concepts should be included in science. So that's the problem I have is that science is hijacked by atheistic dogmas and views and that's uneccessary.

    You said:"Supernatural claims that agree with your religious beliefs are OK, but supernatural claims that conflict with your religious viewer should be EXCLUDED...Again, this is clearly hypocrisy on your part.

    HARDLY, as I've explained before, when those religious concepts are included within SCIENCE I have a problem, but on their own they are free to teach and beliueve what they like.

    Now I could not possibly be more clear. I fail to see what you don't understand.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Laura,
    Just in case you are still around, I wanted to say thanks for directing me to Tipler.

    I haven't read his book yet but one of my local cronies sent me some excerpts.

    I have also read some from his followers and crtics. It's all quite interesting, in a science fiction sort of way.

    "What is the purpose of life in the universe?
    It is not enough to annihilate some baryons. If the laws of physics are to be consistent over all time, a substantial percentage of all the baryons in the universe must be annihilated, and over a rather short time span. Only if this is done will the acceleration of the universe be halted. This means, in particular, that intelligent life from the terrestrial biosphere must move out into interstellar and intergalactic space, annihilating baryons as they go. (p. 67)"
    LOLOLOL!!!!!!

    Better yet:

    "How did Jesus walk on water?
    For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward. If we ourselves knew how to do this, we would have the perfect rocket! (p. 200)"

    So, Jesus had a neutrino beam generator under his robe?
    Kewl! That explains everything!

    Finally:
    "How can long-dead saints intercede in the lives of people who pray to them?
    According to the Universal Resurrection theory, everyone, in particular the long-dead saints, will be brought back into existence as computer emulations in the far future, near the Final Singularity, also called God the Father. … Future-to-past causation is usual with the Cosmological Singularity. A prayer made today can be transferred by the Singularity to a resurrected saint—the Virgin Mary, say—after the Universal Resurrection. The saint can then reflect on the prayer and, by means of the Son Singularity acting through the multiverse, reply. The reply, via future-to-past causation, is heard before it is made. It is heard billions of years before it is made. (p. 235)"

    Oh Boy! He's an old earther that promotes praying to the virgin mary!

    Thanks, Laura. This is side splitting stuff! My wife even wandered by to find the cause of my hilarity!

    LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  107. Harvey wrote: neither God nor atheistic concepts should be included in science. So that's the problem I have is that science is hijacked by atheistic dogmas and views and that's uneccessary.

    Harvey, the claim that a sentient, non-material being exists cannot be disproven by science. But you are not merely suggesting such a being exists. Instead, you're suggesting this being is also all knowing, all powerful and actually uses supernatural abilities to effect the material world in very specific ways.

    That you believe the Christian God created the universe and all life is your specific supernatural claim. The failure of science to "recognize" this is not unfair bias.

    If God wanted to reveal his part in the creation of the universe, there is a multitude of ways he could do so.

    For example, he could simply appear to us and create a miniature universe as part of a controlled experiment. Or he could have actually put a "fingerprint" in the cell of every living thing that is biological equivalent of a "Created by the Christian God" signature.

    But without this sort of explicit means of verification, then any specific claims about what God supposedly did or did not do fall outside the realm of science.

    I wrote: Supernatural claims that agree with your religious beliefs are OK, but supernatural claims that conflict with your religious viewer should be EXCLUDED...Again, this is clearly hypocrisy on your part.

    Harvey wrote: HARDLY, as I've explained before, when those religious concepts are included within SCIENCE I have a problem, but on their own they are free to teach and beliueve what they like.

    Now I could not possibly be more clear. I fail to see what you don't understand.


    Harvey, your entire rant is about how science "construct[s] a world FIRST without God." But, according to your beliefs, how did God supposedly create the universe and everything in it? He used his supernatural powers. Right?

    Again, if science were include creationism, then it would be including the supernatural. But only the particular supernatural belief that you yourself consider true.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Scott,

    You said:Harvey, the claim that a sentient, non-material being exists cannot be disproven by science.

    Falsifiability is a concept of science that was developed by Economics professor at the London School of economics named Karl Popper. He was considered to be a leader in what is called the Philosophy of science. He came up with the thought that in order for science to take place that it must be theoretically "possible" to make an observation that would disprove the subject.

    This is how you CONSISTENTLY define science in your writings so I know you believe this hook, line and sinker. Poppers statements and yours contain the same fallacy however.

    Look, I'll use Vox's example here: If we make the statement that all swans are white, then proceed to see a black swan, under Poppers and your arguments now Swans are a proper scientific matter...another example...I say all lego bricks are red...I observe a blue brick, because I've falsified the statement now all lego bricks are a proper scientific matter...

    This is one of the most silly propositions in the world, because it lends to nothing and no greater understanding. Either everything becomes a proper scientific matter (because of claims) or nothing becomes one if all things are uniform and there no claim.

    As Vox says,
    "But this merely expands the falsifiability test into a haphazard, technology driven definition that dives headlong into tautology, defining science as whatever scientists believe science to be at the moment, or worse whatever scientists are doing"(pg. 31)

    So I reject the notion that all science is based on this premise. I've stated over and over, NONE of you can observe or falsify the "big bang" but ALL of you call it science. So your whole premise is dead as fas as I'm concerned.

    I've explained my thoughts here on what science can and cannot say over and over, I can't understand why you're still talking about it...

    For science to tell me that God does not exist is an atheistic premise. That is not science it is philosophy based on metaphysical naturalism.

    Methodological naturalism may be good for what it does for the material world but it cannot disprove or exclude God in any fashion. that's beyond what it's designed to do.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Harvey wrote: For science to tell me that God does not exist is an atheistic premise. That is not science it is philosophy based on metaphysical naturalism.

    Harvey, you failed to address my actual argument, again.

    If God is non-material and uses his omnipotence to elude being observed in a concrete way, then it would be impossible for science to detect him. Therefore, science could never confirm or deny out the existence of such a being. It's impossible by definition.

    So, NO. Science does not tell you God does not exist.

    However, the moment you claim God used his supernatural abilities to effect the material world in a specific way, you've made a scientific claim. That science does not presuppose your specific fundamentalist Christian definition of God when studying the natural world is not atheism.

    Instead, it represents the failure of young earth creationism due to overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Your attempt to blame science for this failure is transparent and disingenuous.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Scott,

    You said:"Therefore, science could never confirm or deny out the existence of such a being. It's impossible by definition...So, NO. Science does not tell you God does not exist.

    That's ALL I'm trying to say Scott. Science cannot do this if it remains science, but what we have within science is philosphy as demonstrated by your very next comment:

    You said: However, the moment you claim God used his supernatural abilities to effect the material world in a specific way, you've made a scientific claim."

    As I stated previously that's Popper's argumentation and he was a scientific PHILOSOPHER and atheist. His argument is only ONE sort of definition for science as stated earlier and is not effective in many scientific subjects.

    So in short, the strategy that you've bought into is an atheistic premise, full of atheistic bias to begin with. It's not open to further scientific discovery other than materialism.

    It's interesting what is clearly unvcovered here. Atheistic philosophy exists within science as philosophy. Many, including yourself don't know or have never distinguished the difference. We'll it's revealed now.

    ReplyDelete
  111. I wrote: However, the moment you claim God used his supernatural abilities to effect the material world in a specific way, you've made a scientific claim.

    Harvey wrote: As I stated previously that's Popper's argumentation and he was a scientific PHILOSOPHER and atheist.

    Again, apparently you cannot understand my argument.

    Young Earth Creationism claims that all species were created all at once and that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. This is known as empirical content. A such, it should be subjected to criticism and falsification.

    Furthermore, Popper's theory of falsification falls under the theory of Fallibilism which was developed by a THEIST nameCharles Sanders Peirce.

    The fact that Popper was a non-theist doesn't mean that he is biased against God.

    Again, your attempts to blame the decline of YEC on science is transparent and disingenuous.

    For example, wouldn't you claim it would be biased for science to INCLUDE the aspect of Intelligent Design that suggests the earth is at least millions of years old?

    ReplyDelete
  112. Harvey wrote: So in short, the strategy that you've bought into is an atheistic premise, full of atheistic bias to begin with. It's not open to further scientific discovery other than materialism.

    Here you reveal actually how little you know and how biased YOU are.

    If you actually knew anything about the multitude to supernatural claims and even some religions, you'd know that not all of them depend on theism. In fact, a majority of them lack any theistic content. Instead, theism happens to be the most widely accepted form of the supernatural.

    So, again, your claim of bias against God is show to be clearly false.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Harvey posted: Methodological naturalism has no necessity to give way to atheism or metaphysical naturalism, however this is the current condition and confusion of modern scientific method. Science, which is a valuable and needed tool in ordinary life should not be used as a tool to explain away God as in and of itself is not equipped to do so without being a philosophical construct. Science should remain neutral at best and worst even within a Christian or theistic environment.

    Harvey, this appears to be the core of your argument. But as I've mentioned in previous comments, you're continued denial of the overwhelming evidence for evolution seems to explain why you blame science for the decline of young earth creationism.

    To use a previous analogy, you've assigned yourself as a self-appointed legal defender of young earth creationism (YEC). When presented with an overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests it is false, you have several options.

    A. Acknowledge there is a overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests YEC is false, but state that you hold the Bible as the highest authority and therefore you have faith it is true DESPITE all of the overwhelming evidence that suggests otherwise. It's a matter of faith, not science. Or you could simply suggest that the creation account is metaphorical and reveals some other truth about God's involvement.

    B. Acknowledge there is a overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests YEC is false, but provide a plausible reason why all of the current evidence, including multiple dating methods, transitional fossils, etc, makes it appear that the earth is billions of years old and that evolution is true. Perhaps God had a reason why he created the universe so it looked billions of years old as part of a test? Or perhaps Satan use his supernatural powers to plant false evidence which suggests YEC is false?

    However, you have taken neither of these options. Instead you flat out reject that overwhelming evidence exists. You ignore the elephant in the room.

    Now, this defense strategy might work when you're preaching to the choir (existing YECs who lack critical thinking skills and do not understand science), but, the actual members of the jury in this case (academia and college students) DO exhibit critical thinking skills and ARE science literate. Nor have they formed a dogmatic faith required to flat out deny the evidence in front of them.

    Since you've effectively blinded yourself to the overwhelming amount of evidence, you fail to address it in any meaningful way. And by ignoring it you appear dogmatic, which causes you to loose credibility. Dispute your rants and raves to the contrary, the jury still sees the elephant in the room and you loose the case.

    While It's clear your approach has failed, rather than admit this and change your strategy, you cry foul; claiming science is unfairly biased against God. Trying to pin this on science is transparent and disingenuous.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Scott,

    You said:"Again, apparently you cannot understand my argument."

    Apparently I do, have answered it and you "think" you're adding something to what's been discussed but you're not...What you're doing is further equivocating over the issue becuase I have presented ample evidence in support of my assertions and it has been found to account for the bias and reason that modern scientific methods do science with an atheistic bias.

    As I expressed NONE of that is scientific.

    Popper's methods which YOU espouse have been proven to be bankrupt and flawed adding no NEW dimension to the conversation at hand...As I've stated to you before, repeating, bad, failed, flawed and REFUTED arguments make them no better the 7th 8 and 9th times around as you persist on doing.

    SECONDLY...you're arguing a STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. Nobody's arguing for or against YEC EXCEPT you and that SHADOW you'r boxing...Have I one mentioned YEC on my own? In over 100 comments and retorts i don't believe that I have ever set that concept forth...That's not even on the point or topic of this thread...

    So what are you on???

    ReplyDelete
  115. Scott,

    How does this read and sound:"The fact that Popper was a non-theist doesn't mean that he is biased against God.

    So he was an ATHEIST and that doesn't mean he was biased against God? YEAAAAAA RIGHT!

    ReplyDelete
  116. Hey Harvey hows it going.Ive been busy elswhere.

    I notice old Voxy mostly stays within the safe confines of his own book or blog Harvey.He makes himself look good,with groupys who mostly only dare to lick his toes like he`s some modern day Jesus.

    Pretty simple to create a win win situation when have it sussed that if somebody asks something you dont want to answer you can simply say,wont answer that.Or you can say i wont allow this or that.

    But most sane people with even half a brain can see how it really works.Specially the youth!.But with relics who like what they hearing,well then thats a differnt matter.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Harvey wrote: So he was an ATHEIST and that doesn't mean he was biased against God? YEAAAAAA RIGHT!

    If I am a non-stamp collector, does that mean I'm biased against stamp collectors?

    SECONDLY...you're arguing a STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. Nobody's arguing for or against YEC EXCEPT you and that SHADOW you'r boxing...Have I one mentioned YEC on my own? In over 100 comments and retorts i don't believe that I have ever set that concept forth...That's not even on the point or topic of this thread…

    Really Harvey?

    Do you want me to go back and quote where you've claimed that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and that God created all living things at once and in final form?

    Apparently you can't even remember your own arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Harvey,

    Just in case you forgot...

    I wrote: This means that, over a period of millions of years, species were abruptly appearing where none had existed before. To be crystal clear, ID does not think all forms of life were created at once as creationists claim."

    You wrote: What this is called is a misinterpretation of the bible as it pertain to science. How long was the time before Adam sinned? FYI: Creation occured during that period. Can you give me the time line for it?

    I'll guarantee that most any answer you render will be wrong, if you attempt to say the bible is an inadequate record.


    If this isn't YEC, then exactly what is it?

    ReplyDelete
  119. Scott,

    You said:Do you want me to go back and quote where you've claimed that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and that God created all living things at once and in final form?

    YES, do that it ought to be a good one.

    You said:Apparently you can't even remember your own arguments.

    Apparently you have no idea what I'm saying, therefore you don't understand my arguments.

    Then after offering a supposed confirmation of your imposition on my statements you ask:If this isn't YEC, then exactly what is it?

    Since you know so much you tell me, but It's certainly not YEC-LOL!!!

    This is scrackin' my side right now...It's a FUNDY party over here isn't it? They have left from arguing what I say, to what I haven't said and don't say...That's a gag!-LOL

    Look you want me to write one on YEC? I mean so you can make all the points you think are significant? Because for this thread they have no bearing.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Harvey wrote: Apparently I do, have answered it and you "think" you're adding something to what's been discussed but you're not..

    Ranting and raving about how science should only accept the particular supernatural claims which do not conflict with your religious views does not constitute an "answer". It's hypocrisy.

    You've made it clear, multiple times, that your definition of "fairness" is limited to your fundamentalist Christian beliefs. It's an open admission to the ulterior motives of your post, and disingenuous at best.

    Do I need to copy and paste all of them here in a comment for everyone to see?

    Furthermore, it's obvious this attack is a desperate move to distract from the failure of YEC. Ignoring the elephant in the room might work when preaching to the choir, but it's isn't working in academia and college campuses.

    Harvey wrote: As I expressed NONE of that is scientific.

    Huh? Science is not scientific? Or do you mean you just don't happen to agree with the results of science when it conflicts with your religious beliefs?

    If God created all life in one sitting, less than 10,000 years ago, this is a very specific claim about how God supposedly interacted the material world in a way. It falls under the realm of science. Again, to be crystal clear, it's IS a claim about science because it IS falsifiable. Nor is it being excluded on the grounds that it's NOT falsifiable. It's being excluded because it HAS been falsified.

    Should you actually understand Popper's philosophy, I'd invite you to write a short summary here in your own words. However, I'm guessing you're merely cutting and pasting from Vox's book without actually understanding it.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Harvey wrote: Since you know so much you tell me, but It's certainly not YEC-LOL!!!

    Harvey, It's really quite simple.

    Do you think the earth is less than 10,000 years old?

    Yes or No.

    Do you think God created all life in one sitting and in final form?

    Yes or No.

    Should you answer yes to both of these questions, you're a YEC.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Look you want me to write one on YEC? I mean so you can make all the points you think are significant? Because for this thread they have no bearing.

    No bearing? You're entire argument is that science is unfairly biased because it doesn't accept creationism.

    Need I remind you?

    You wrote: Scott what you've done and what science does is construct a world FIRST without God. That is the theorem upon which your theory is constructed to begin with. eg; scientific method has a false basis.

    And you've made it clear that you think God created all life in final form "when Adam sinned"

    Last, you failed to respond to the following...

    For example, wouldn't you claim it would be biased for science to INCLUDE the aspect of Intelligent Design that suggests the earth is at least millions of years old?

    Care to answer the question?

    ReplyDelete
  123. Scott,

    You said:"No bearing? You're entire argument is that science is unfairly biased because it doesn't accept creationism."

    You want me to say that soooooooo bad you can taste it can't you. You're just hoping that's what I'm saying-LOL-U R A Gag!

    Modern science and RADICALS such as you hold to philosophical metaphysical natrualism which BEFORE ANY INVESTIGATION discounts the notion of supernatural activity in the present world.

    YOU present the premise not based on scientific results, (BECUASE YOU (scientists in general)ADMIT THERE IS MUCH THAT YOU DON'T KNOW- EVEN AFTER OBSERVATION at times)

    However the philosophy of science as directed by atheists always inclused the presupposition that there is no GOd...

    I simply point out that what you do to arrive at that point of understanding, even BEFORE invesitigation begins, is and cannot be considered anything but UNSCIENTIFIC. YOU AGREED with the fact that SCIENCE CANNOT DISPROVE GOD...did you not?

    Scott:Therefore, science could never confirm or deny out the existence of such a being. It's impossible by definition...So, NO. Science does not tell you God does not exist.
    October 22, 2009 10:06 AM


    Science cannot and does not tell us that God does not exist by your own definition. You go further to claim that IF we say God has moved in the earth then that a scientific calim that must be able to be falsified...I point clearly to the FACT that, that ideaology was not a scientific one but a philosophical one that is INAPPLICABLE to MUCH of what we know as science.

    It is your RADICAL OBSESSION to make this philosophical construct apply to God when IT DOES NOT APPLY to a great deal of what we call science...There is no NECESSITY that it applies to God simply because HE is GOd....

    Yours is a case of SPECIAL PLEADING (as most atheists do) to MAKE Popper's standard apply to God when we can point to SPECIFIC CONCEPTS in modern science to which that same standard DOES NOT APPLY. It is a philosophical necessity for you to apply that standard to God in spite of the FACT that it doesn't apply to other areas of science.

    You want to address something ADDRESS THAT! Why does the standard of falsifiability NOT apply to "Big Bang" Cosmology for starters?

    Thus your Radical BIAS is revealed! Therefore, I REJECT your attemt to make Popper's standards apply to God and his interaction in the world for your arguments are ad-hoc and full of special pleading fallacies.

    FURTHER, neither this post NOR it's contents have hinged any of it's premises on Young Earth Creationism. You desperately attgempt to create a link that has NOTHING to do with the validity of this argument and your CONCESSION that science is illequipped and not a vehicle to debunk God in any fashion. I also agree that science is illequipped to prove the existence of GOd.

    Suggestions either way based on science is based on PHILOSOPHICAL constructs. While I believe that the phenomena we observe in the known universe is a PRODUCT of the existence of GOd, my conclusions are based on a philosophical view and not merely a scientific view.

    Science in the classroom should RECLUSE itself of any atheistic premises based on what you readily agree...Science cannot disprove God! Therefore science SHOULD NOT make any statements that there is no God...those are the wierd prelections of atheists not scientists.

    In short, modern science has an atheistic presupposition as currently presented in most venues and that in and of itself, is an unscientific proposition and unecessary bias!

    Scott, I'm finished with you as there is nothing else to add to the enlightenment of either of us or the audience.

    I think you've stated your positions well. I really don't know what's left except for issues that NOBODY'S arguing.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Harvey wrote: You want me to say that soooooooo bad you can taste it can't you. You're just hoping that's what I'm saying-LOL-U R A Gag!

    I don't have to hope. You've already said it. If these quotes do not refer to creationism, then what do they refer to?

    Harvey wrote: Modern science and RADICALS such as you hold to philosophical metaphysical natrualism which BEFORE ANY INVESTIGATION discounts the notion of supernatural activity in the present world.

    Are you willing to accept Astrology, which is a supernatural means of divining the future prospects one's romantic, financial or heath based on their birth date and the positions of the planet as science. Of course not, you reject it as mysticism, which conflicts with your religious beliefs.

    However the philosophy of science as directed by atheists always inclused the presupposition that there is no GOd…

    Could God exist, but have chosen to take absolutely no actions at all?

    Or, to turn the question around, does God have to do anything at all to exist. Does he have to take physical form to exist. Would God be any less great if he had done nothing? Would you conceder God less worthy of worship if he had not created human beings at all? As a theist, I'm guessing you'd say no.

    Therefore, to say God's existence is dependent on him having taking any action is clearly false.

    But your claim does not end with God merely existing. Instead, you go on to say that God created the universes from nothing. You say that God created all life, at once, and in final form. And you claim he did it less than 10,000 years ago. This is a claim about the physical world, which is the realm of science.

    That God did anything in particular which impacted the universe is specific to your religious beliefs. If you actually made any serious attempt to understand what people believe beyond Christianity, you'd know that not all supernatural claims include the a creator God.

    It is YOUR religious bias that only allows the acceptance of the supernatural as a function of the Christian God. Therefore, you would rant and rave that science was biased if it INCLUDED supernatural claims that excluded theistic notion of God.

    Do you deny this?

    You want to address something ADDRESS THAT! Why does the standard of falsifiability NOT apply to "Big Bang" Cosmology for starters?

    A universe from nothing: Lawence Krauss, AAI 2009. While I recommend you watch the entire video, you can jump to 35:00 in to his talk to see just one way we know the Big Bang occurred.

    ReplyDelete
  125. And, in case you need your memory jogged...

    You wrote: Laura,



    You said:"I totally believe the Genesis story lock, stock and barrel."



    And I say thank you Laura. I agree Genesis doesn't need an excuse. 

There's a lot in the account that very few even discuss yet alone try to make dogmatic assertions about.

There are all kinds of treasures in the account.


    If this is isn't YEC then perhaps you can enlighten us as to how your beliefs differ.

    ReplyDelete
  126. ...Just adding thoughts. Kind of late I know but nevertheless. Science has always before Darwin, at Darwin, and after Darwin acknowledged God. Men and women who are scientist whether christian or not acknowledge Him all the time in one word and they know it, atheist included. One word...UNIVERSE...It's one of their words. It means One Word spoken methodically poetically
    purposefully metrically equating the expression of God by meter and specificity. Uni-Verse is a reference to the spoken creative voice of the true and living God. There's more to this.

    Lawrence

    ReplyDelete

Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Dunamis1@netzero.com. Thanks.