Theosophy and Christianity

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


This is the kind of garbage I am talking about that prevents anybody from holding a civil argument with you. Apparently, you are the most infallible being to walk this Earth since Jesus, You and Only You know the truth, everyone who says anything different from you is a liar, the Earth is only 6000 years old ( I thought it was a myth that people believe that, you just discredited yourself right there.)

See I don't need to argue with you; the fact that you believe the earthy is only 6000 or even 10000 years old speaks for itself. You don't need anybody to rebut your arguments to make yourself look foolish; honestly, you are doing such a swell job on your own. As I said; you are taking a strawmans argument regarding creation and applying it to me, which is wrong. You have no idea what I believe and the fact that you don't even know that Sun and Moon worship was a METAPHOR; I'm done.

Thought you should read this in attempt to dispel the 'SOCIETIES WORSHIP SATAN' BS you regurgitate out..

Read the quote in it's entirety before drawing assumptions...

"That which we must say to the world is that we worship a god, but it is the god that one adores without superstition. To you, Sovereign Grand Inspectors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the brethren of the 32nd, 31st and 30th degrees: The masonic Religion should be, by all of us initiates of the higher degrees, maintained in the Purity of the Luciferian doctrine. If Lucifer were not God, would Adonay and his priests calumniate him? Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay is also god. For the eternal law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without black, for the absolute can only exist as two gods; darkness being necessary for light to serve as its foil as the pedestal is necessary to the statue, and the brake to the locomotive.... Thus, the doctrine of Satanism is a heresy, and the true and pure philosophical religion is the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adonay; but Lucifer, God of Light and God of Good, is struggling for humanity against Adonay, the God of Darkness and Evil."

reply to post by racasan


Layers on snow on ice caps (it is a false assumption that each layer equals a year, each layer equals a snow fall event):

World War II Airplanes Under the Ice The Greenland Society of Atlanta has recently attempted to excavate a 10-foot diameter shaft in the Greenland ice pack to remove two B-17 Flying Fortresses and six P-38 Lightning fighters trapped under an estimated 250 feet of ice for almost 50 years (Bloomberg, 1989). Aside from the fascination with salvaging several vintage aircraft for parts and movie rights, the fact that these aircraft were buried so deeply in such a short time focuses attention on the time scales used to estimate the chronologies of ice.

If the aircraft were buried under about 250 feet of ice and snow in about 50 years, this means the ice sheet has been accumulating at an average rate of five feet per year. The Greenland ice sheet averages almost 4000 feet thick. If we were to assume the ice sheet has been accumulating at this rate since its beginning, it would take less than 1000 years for it to form and the recent-creation model might seem to be vindicated.
source

The source of the article also describes a few other ice sheets around.

The amount of mud accumulation in lakes, rivers and oceans is a good example of something that proves a young earth (in comparison to the earth being 4.5 billion years old). But you assume I agree that their has been uniform mud deposits each year when I believe and can show a universal flood which throws out the uniformity of your measure.

The verified growth rates of the coral at Eniwetok atoll in the Pacific are???

At the moment the discussion is up to the non-YEC's defending the issues in the big bang model of cosmology and to explain away the physical fine tuning in the constants and laws in the world to enable existence from a naturalistic view. Not what your doing at the moment which is jumping in half way through, bringing up unverified information on topics I haven't presented for yet (as well as other erroneous links)....and not saying what your own beliefs are. At the moment we are discussing cosmology and physics...soon we will be discussing organic and biological evolution. I have a framework I am trying to stick to reasonable well so that the debate is focused progression of understanding rather than derailed by whatever random argument someone can come up with in the Genesis model at the moment....did you watch the videos I suggested?

Originally posted by no1smootha
reply to post by JesuitGarlic

 

these scientists support the idea of intelligent design but they aren't in agreement with young earth creationism, perhaps you missed that.

edit on 2-9-2012 by no1smootha because: (no reason given)

I don't know if William Lane Craig or Robin Collins have heard the arguments for YEC views so I use their comments on what they are experts in (which is, that there is a supernatural being responsible for creation and the fine tuning in nature says we are not a mistake, that the reason for your existence is for a specific purpose). Walter Veith, Jason Lisle and Don Patton are all YEC's.

If you want to make a point of it you can try and track down the reasons why Craig and Collins who I think are creationists and not YEC's make that distinction, but until then, I will use information from creationist in the fields that they are expert in and in books where I have read from them and where I can find experts in other areas I will use YEC's.

Basically I can make the whole argument with just material from YEC Walter Veith, but I am choosing to use more arguments in more specialized areas.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

This is the kind of garbage I am talking about that prevents anybody from holding a civil argument with you. Apparently, you are the most infallible being to walk this Earth since Jesus, You and Only You know the truth, everyone who says anything different from you is a liar

Put your money where your mouth is and use my own arguments to prove me wrong as obviously the Young Earth Creationist should be able to come up with absolutely no material of any worth right!

The difference here is that I am proving my worldview as a reasonable faith through various lines of evidence and am open to criticism from every angle. In contrast, can you prove your worldview from beginning to end using history and science and withstand scrutiny from every angle in order to prove it (up against like 5+ other negative views)....you didn't want me to even comment on your friend's posts unless it was affirming it...that speaks volumes. I have absolutely no issue with throwing myself into the lion's den because I can back up what my mouth says.

See I don't need to argue with you; the fact that you believe the earthy is only 6000 or even 10000 years old speaks for itself

You don't have enough knowledge of the physical world and science (reality) to be able to argue with me.

I haven't presented my posts for the young age of the earth yet (I have only alluded to what lines of thought I will be taking)...so you have no argument...you are 'done' because that is the only way you can escape reality and justify it in your own mind that you at least listened, to save face.

I am baiting you...because I want you to stay, because in the end it will be good for you. I am trying to engage your ego so that you will try to argue against me passionately and properly engage in the issues because when you are focused and putting your time into this, THEN you will discover the real truth....in the meantime you have to put up with me being a bit of a prick to keep you on the hook, so that your attention still remains here in spite of the evidence which is denying your paradigm of life (where the mind wants to run in order to preserve itself from going through the stages of loss....what you will gain over what you will lose will be worth it in the end though that is all I can say)

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


Perhaps you better ask the Mason what they will think about me commenting on that Masonic quote....I believe their stance is that they deny it is legit

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


This is exactly why I refuse to argue with you; you act as if you are the only one who knows anything. In fact if you had actually been paying attention to my earlier posts you would have know they weren't without merit. I'm not spoonfeeding you; connect the dots on your own.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by JesuitGarlic

 

This is exactly why I refuse to argue with you; you act as if you are the only one who knows anything. In fact if you had actually been paying attention to my earlier posts you would have know they weren't without merit. I'm not spoonfeeding you; connect the dots on your own.

I am sorry, the concepts (pictures and word puzzles) of the tree of life and egg of life ect ect. are not scientific arguments against the evidence I presented....no matter what world you're in.

I added some more lines both near the beginning and end of my last post in case you missed them

Prove I am wrong by arguing the content instead of continually arguing against my person in order to dodge.

Did you go watch the video I posted up on the dinosaurs? What did you think of it?

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by JesuitGarlic

 

This is exactly why I refuse to argue with you; you act as if you are the only one who knows anything. In fact if you had actually been paying attention to my earlier posts you would have know they weren't without merit. I'm not spoonfeeding you; connect the dots on your own.

Do you really need me to debunk a couple of lines of your beliefs of origins through going through the concept of 'the origin of spin'...

Harley says: 'There was a void' (vacuum with nothing in it, trying to imply nothing is there when a vacuum is still a contained space, thus space (3 dimensions) has already begun...the question comes up, is he being deceptive in describing it as a 'void' or does he just not know science)

we have him talking about 'pressure fronts' acting at different angels

a pressure front is a force, in physics a force equals mass times velocity (Newton's 2nd law of motion)

but harley is saying that 'mass' doesn't exist yet because his higgs boson comes way later.

anything with a 'mass' would automatically say that it is a 3 dimensional object and space-time has already begun.

He then talks about these forces acting at 90 degree angles (that is already 2 dimensional space)

So we have multiple times in his very first lines of reasoning in how to explain how the chicken got here by saying....well assume we have a chicken already but we will call it a different name so you won't know it as a chicken, then the chicken lays the egg and after a bit of time ta-da, that is how the chicken first came into existence.

In this instance though he is describing the origins of 1, 2, and 3 dimensional space+ and the origins of mass. In order to describe it though he is already assuming mass and the 2 or 3 dimensional space already exist in order to be able to explain himself....thus the analogy of describing how the chicken came into existence by already assuming we have a chicken

Now, I you think I am going to take this line of unscientific reasoning seriously and build a belief system around it then think again...and I would urge you to do the same as well. (that is analyzing just the first few thoughts of his 'unifying theory of everything', there are similar errors and logical fallacies all the way through it.)

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


I thought it was completely bogus for one. Secondly, the flower of life was easily explained by my friend Harley's explanation; however there are others that talk a great deal on the subject as well. Would you like links? Why is it that YHVH the tetragammaton, when stacked forms the Tree of Life? Or that in the Flower of life it depicts both the Tree of Life, Seal of SOL-OM-ON, etc?

I would like for you to read this thread I created recently.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why is it that Leonardo da Vinci who constructed the last supper, which features the triptych entrance of the ancient world and secret societies, also made the Vitruvian man?



Not only does it form the star tetrahedron, but also the hexagram, and the famous 'squaring of the circle'.

Which if you didn't know is a Freemasonic goal. When asked of the meaning behind the square and compass as part of their logo; they respond

“Both…are architect’s tools…to teach symbolic lessons…” —Wikipedia

The Compass creates a circle :



While the Square creates of course, a square :



However, together they create :



This is the same design in the Vitruvian Man.

The squaring of the circle has been mentioned in various themes. The meaning however is this ;

The square and circle shapes are related in Euclid’s 47th problem of “Squaring The Circle,” said to be the primary goal of the Masonic craft. Squaring the circle, however, does not in this case refer to a mathematical problem: it is a spiritual reference to man’s instinctive quest to harmonize our physical and spiritual natures. Since Antiquity, the square has represented the physical body. The circle, on the other hand, has always represented the soul.

The Square & Compasses thus symbolize Man’s state as an eternal soul manifesting in a temporary body. The circle is our spiritual side that cannot be seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled. It is our true, inner, and perfect Self, the part we feel when we close our eyes and think “me”.

“In Renaissance poetry generally, the circle was a symbol of perfection and…a symbol of the human soul.” —J. Douglas Canfield, University of Arizona

The purpose of the Sun and Moon was not for worship of nature you silly rabbit; The veneration for such was the study of yin and yang. Those who worshiped the sun, worshiped all the good that it stood for ; light, love, courage, bravery, truth, wisdom, healing. The moon was the worship of all that was passive, and essentially was nature itself. They did not literally worship them; but understood the knowledge and meaning that they conveyed through analogy.

Do you remember this painting by Raphael that I showed you earlier?



Do you 'debunk' Raphael's merit for having constructed such a piece? However let's think about something.. The word uni-verse means, one word, correct? I believe you even pointed this out yourself at one reply.

Now let's examine this Bible quote.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This has nothing to do with some man erroneously named Jesus Christ who was born in year 0 (where do you come up with this), and created a cult religion of Christianity.

The Word is none other than AUM, the mystical sanskrit sound of the Ajna Chakra. You should notice at the very top, the Sun is depicted inside of the crescent moon, resulting in the balance of duality, along with the evident number 3. 3 represents the Trinity, and the balance of opposites. The Christian trinity is nothing more than a corruption of the Mind(God), Body(Jesus in the Flesh), Spirit(Holy Spirit).

It has to have a negative and positive aspect, the combination of those two opposites, one an expansion of space, one a compression, which is the two effects our voice creates.

Apply Aum to to its use to stimulate the Pineal gland, how Jesus is always depicted between the sun and moon, just like the pineal gland is between the two opposite brain hemispheres.

The bible says Jesus was the word, and the word is Aum....

Aum is the sound representative of the Pineal gland.



This painting is conveying a meaning....

The Pineal gland, or Ajna Chakra, is situated between the two hemispheres of your brain. The left-right brain are imbued separately with aspects and traits of the Sun/Moon.



Just as Jesus is situated between the sun and moon, so too is your Pineal gland. It is the word AUM that produces the vibration to stimulate the gland. This is precisely why the Freemasons created their masonic tracing board as such because they realized these things. You however would rather follow a cult religion that seeks to become a mediator between your afterlife, while controlling your physical existence as well through their governments. They wish to rob people of their own divinity or spirituality, because if they didn't demonize Freemasonic teachings, people would discover the truth and that they don't need priests that take vows of celibacy but can't keep their hands off of little boys..

That's why Jesus said no man come to the father but by him, the pineal gland, that control the 12 different parts of the brain, just like the 12 apostles.

www.futurity.org...

When a person falls in love, 12 areas of the brain work in tandem to release the same euphoric feeling as using coc aine, according to a new study.

Now wait just a second; the 12 areas of the brain work together to create the emotion of love? The same euphoric feeling as using coc aine?

en.wikipedia.org...

Studies on rodents suggest that the pineal gland may influence the actions of recreational drugs, such as coc aine,

en.wikipedia.org...

Back to the God is love; if one operates through their Pineal gland exhibiting love and compassion, understanding for their fellow man as I outlined in quotes from Rudolph Steiner's book; that is the way to the father.

That would mean the anti-christ is no more than your own ego effectively keeping the real you(higher self, soul, Christ/Krishna consciousness from taking control.

It is your ego which is responsible for all of the indiscretions that inhibit the Pineal gland and the ability to grow and exhibit compassion and love.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


What I'm getting from this entire post is that you think you know more about all of this reality than anyone else in this thread.

You really aren't getting any customers here.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Exactly; thanks for putting it so succinctly.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


I have a habit of being blunt. It shows especially clearly when I'm confronted with ignorance.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by VeritasAequitas

 

I have a habit of being blunt. It shows especially clearly when I'm confronted with ignorance.

I don't believe I have seen you argue against any one of my official points of evidence yet ol' wise one

If you think making a suggestion that required continents to float on water is denying ignorance then I can't help you there

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


You seem to have forgotten calling Pangaea a myth...

Anyone else miss that? Am I seeing things here? Should I go back and quote that particular post where he says it's not real, then post the wikipedia link that begs to differ?

Okay then.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


I will have a look through your post and your thread (despite it being derailing to the discussion points at hand) ....I will probably answer a few point on it but in a private message

I can tell you what I don't appreciate though:

This has nothing to do with some man erroneously named Jesus Christ who was born in year 0 (where do you come up with this), and created a cult religion of Christianity.

Yeshua is his name, in Greek it is Jesus I believe...'Christ' is a title...Jesus the Christ, Jesus the savior of the world. He was born in 3 or 4 B.C....not year 0 silly rabbit! ....if you call my religion a cult one more time (when you don't even know the proper use of the word) I won't be answering or commenting on a single thing you have to say.

You however would rather follow a cult religion that seeks to become a mediator between your afterlife, while controlling your physical existence as well through their governments. They wish to rob people of their own divinity or spirituality, because if they didn't demonize Freemasonic teachings, people would discover the truth and that they don't need priests that take vows of celibacy but can't keep their hands off of little boys..

Jesus a dear friend of mine is my mediator...and have no concerns with Him by my side. He doesn't control my physical existence....He gave me life and freewill to love Him of my own accord, He doesn't want robots He wants real emotion. My spiritual life is great. If you are Divine then please create a planet the size of Mars and have it whirl around the southern-Hemisphere a here times so I can have a good look at your Divine handiwork.

It is probably a bad idea to associate my religion of 7th-day Adventist protestant Christianity with any kind of link with Satan's throne on the Earth, the religion of the Vatican (especially when you have 4 symbols of Satan in your avatar picture). It is like calling the people that expose the BS that the Vatican does throughout history the most out of anyone else in existence to be somehow associated with them....Please fact check a bit better before making any kind of silly accusations again.

Please note, Adventist's don't have priests....we have both male and female preachers. Pastors are free to marry

When you get every fact wrong when talking about Christianity and my beliefs...I am afraid that the persuasiveness and credibility of your arguments goes down to about zero. If you want to be persuasive to me you're going to have to lift your game much much higher
---------
After the science debunking of the 'origin of spin' a part of this supposed 'unifying theory of everything' let have a bit of a look at if it can reach the mandate of unifying religion

Will it unify the religions? I will sound off the basic beliefs of Christian's, representing several billion people in the world to see if the descriptions represent their God too.

Harley describes how God came into existence being caused by merely 'statistical randomness', basically an inglorious random aberration of the wind. What message do Christians take away from such a description? The idea is put across that there is nothing in particularly special about God, he is not deserving of any reverence because He is just the fortuitous beneficiary of a cosmic accident.

How does Harley describe the reason for our creation...God was bored....
What is the message here? The creator had no emotional involvement in our existence, we don't owe Him anything, there is no important purpose for our lives, we are the result of nothing more significant than the the removal of grit from under God's nails.

What kind of person would enjoy hearing this kind of message?
Someone who wants to heavily reduce the importance of a personal God and one who is deserving of worship and praise and obedience. The message is clear in my mind that you don't have to be obedient to God because He does not really care about you.

How does this implied message compare to what Christians believe is the kind of emotional involvement this Creator/God has in our existence?

- Christian's are told that if just one of us out of billions upon billions of people erred from God's Divine Law and found ourselves deserving, against the law, of death then for just us alone He would have humbled himself to come down to this world to go through the whole ordeal of being spat upon, slandered, tortured and offer himself as a sacrifice unto death in our place so that we could be reconciled back to God the Father through the blood and unblemished life of His Son (so we could join Him in paradise forever...undeservingly).

- Upon this, Adventist Christian's are told that, our creation and what happens upon Earth has the attention of the entire universe of intelligent life. We have a massive role to play in representing God's values, law and character in the cosmic battle between the arch-angel Lucifer who wanted to be worshiped like God and did not want to be subject to God's Law. To show why Lucifer's proposal for being given rule over all the hosts of heaven (all the other angels) and all the other intelligent life in the universe would be a bad idea, that His disobedience to the Divine Law was deserving of death and why it was necessary we be subject to God's Law we are given the scenario in which we find ourselves in now. Lucifer was made ruler of this Earth to show what kind of a ruler he would be and to show His true character. The example of what happens on this Earth is of paramount importance to all of Heaven and the rest of the Universe of why God is justified in erasing someone from existence if they choose to live outside of the Divine Law. That is recorded for all of time here will show what kind of heart ache murder causes, stealing, lying ect ect....God has His perfect Divine Law (the Moral Law) at stake in this whole affair of our creation, His principles that lead to perfect harmony in the world.

Harley says that his theory is a unifying theory of religion...do those two points that I just described of how much our Creator cares for us and how important He places our creation get conveyed at all in his 'unifying theory'. Just the opposite.

The message of his theory is anti-Christian (by making God less and less) so it will not draw any Christian's to it....if it's mandate was to properly represent Christianity and unify it to other religions then it has failed.

If it's mandate was to be a message inspired and given by God then it was fallen short of that mandate.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

---
A good test of the value of Harley's unifying theory would be for him to go to Saudi Arabia, tell them that Allah was caused by 'statistical randomness' and see whether his head will be still unified with his neck!!!

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by JesuitGarlic

 

You seem to have forgotten calling Pangaea a myth...

Anyone else miss that? Am I seeing things here? Should I go back and quote that particular post where he says it's not real, then post the wikipedia link that begs to differ?

Okay then.

Mate, if you live your life based on what wikipedia tells you to do, go right ahead, quote away....I am sure wikipedia was there when the floating continents separated

The only person you're gonna convince of Pangaea is maybe a 5 year old though

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


ok
well the fine tuning argument isn’t as useful as you seem to think

first - if the universe didn’t have the values it does we probably wouldn’t be here to have this discussion

2 - even if the universe was fine tuned it still doesn’t mean that bible god done it – anyone with a god can claim his/her god done it – and the bible god claim fall over anyway when you see passages in the bible supporting a flat earth view of the world

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


Well I'll just break it down like this;

Yeshua is his name, in Greek it is Jesus I believe...'Christ' is a title...Jesus the Christ, Jesus the savior of the world. He was born in 3 or 4 B.C....not year 0 silly rabbit! ....if you call my religion a cult one more time (when you don't even know the proper use of the word) I won't be answering or commenting on a single thing you have to say.

First of all, Yeshua does not translate to Jesus in Greek. Secondly, Christ was not a 'title'. The word christ comes from the greek 'christos'. However, this is not the true etymology of the word either. The Greek 'Christos' is actually a form of the Sanskrit 'Krista' which was used in prayers to the Hindu God Krishna. Oh; look at 'Christianity' stealing more 'pagan' traditions..

The year 0 is that in which one supposes that Jesus Christ was born

en.wikipedia.org...

if you call my religion a cult one more time (when you don't even know the proper use of the word)

What the matter? Can't stand for someone to call it for what it is worth?

The word cult in current popular usage usually refers to a new religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre.

Mind Control:

1) People are put in physically or emotionally distressing situations; All I see now is kids on Facebook selling their soul to 'Jesus Christ' to make their lives right instead of taking charge themselves.

2) Their problems are reduced to one simple explanation, which is repeatedly emphasized; The cause of all Christian's suffering? Not enough 'God' and 'Jesus' in their life.

3) They receive what seems to be unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from a charismatic leader or group; Well I mean damn this just seems to hit the nail on the head.

Does 3/5 count? Cult. Cult. Cult. Cult.

Need more?

One of the more inspirational passages in the Bible tells the story of Elijah, a wise man, yet one cursed with male pattern baldness. One day he was minding his own business, making the long walk to Bethel, when he is attacked by a roving band of children who tease him with names like “bald head.” But Elijah was having none of this, he turns round and curses them in the name of the Lord, and instantly two female bears emerge from a nearby wood and maul all 42 children to death.

4 Kings 2:23-24

One of the Bible's greatest prophets killed 42 children, say what?

www.evilbible.com...

Few more here...

Jesus a dear friend of mine is my mediator...and have no concerns with Him by my side. He doesn't control my physical existence....He gave me life and freewill to love Him of my own accord,

So let me get this straight; an omniscient being telling you listen to a government he knows is/going to be corrupt, is in no way controlling your physical existence? I don't have a mediator, and I have no concerns either. What say you on that? He gave you life? Wrong, your father and mother, two pairs of opposites did. Ever put batteries into an electronic device? It is the opposite configurations of the batteries that power the device with energy as well.

You have free will?

Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints.

en.wikipedia.org...

Now how is that you have the ability to make choices free from constraints or duress, when God tells you that you must worship none other or else you will go to hell. Why couldn't I worship the Sun which I believe is imbued with all that is great in this world?

That doesn't exactly sound like free will..Sounds like something a tyrant does, an oddly similar to our government as well; giving us the illusion that we are free when in reality we are still enslaved, except it's not just blacks anymore..

It is probably a bad idea to associate my religion of 7th-day Adventist protestant Christianity with any kind of link with Satan's throne on the Earth, the religion of the Vatican (especially when you have 4 symbols of Satan in your avatar picture).

As for a correct description of my avatar, please drop whatever erroneous meaning you 'think' that these symbols have...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I described them before in another thread, at great length and detail. You could use the re-education on their meaning, apposed to the ridiculous meanings conjured up by the Anti-Anti-Christianity campaign; see what I did there?

Please note, Adventist's don't have priests....we have both male and female preachers. Pastors are free to marry When you get every fact wrong when talking about Christianity and my beliefs...I am afraid that the persuasiveness and credibility of your arguments goes down to about zero. If you want to be persuasive to me you're going to have to lift your game much much higher.

My comments related to Priests were in regards to Catholicism; however it's a moot point to try and separate your religions when A) They are branches of 'Christianity', or B) They both worship the same God. Regardless of whether or not you think there a dividing line between the two; there isn't.

After the science debunking of the 'origin of spin' a part of this supposed 'unifying theory of everything' let have a bit of a look at if it can reach the mandate of unifying religion Will it unify the religions? I will sound off the basic beliefs of Christian's, representing several billion people in the world to see if the descriptions represent their God too. Harley describes how God came into existence being caused by merely 'statistical randomness', basically an inglorious random aberration of the wind. What message do Christians take away from such a description? The idea is put across that there is nothing in particularly special about God, he is not deserving of any reverence because He is just the fortuitous beneficiary of a cosmic accident. How does Harley describe the reason for our creation...God was bored.... What is the message here? The creator had no emotional involvement in our existence, we don't owe Him anything, there is no important purpose for our lives, we are the result of nothing more significant than the the removal of grit from under God's nails. What kind of person would enjoy hearing this kind of message? Someone who wants to heavily reduce the importance of a personal God and one who is deserving of worship and praise and obedience. The message is clear in my mind that you don't have to be obedient to God because He does not really care about you. How does this implied message compare to what Christians believe is the kind of emotional involvement this Creator/God has in our existence? - Christian's are told that if just one of us out of billions upon billions of people erred from God's Divine Law and found ourselves deserving, against the law, of death then for just us alone He would have humbled himself to come down to this world to go through the whole ordeal of being spat upon, slandered, tortured and offer himself as a sacrifice unto death in our place so that we could be reconciled back to God the Father through the blood and unblemished life of His Son (so we could join Him in paradise forever...undeservingly). - Upon this, Adventist Christian's are told that, our creation and what happens upon Earth has the attention of the entire universe of intelligent life. We have a massive role to play in representing God's values, law and character in the cosmic battle between the arch-angel Lucifer who wanted to be worshiped like God and did not want to be subject to God's Law. To show why Lucifer's proposal for being given rule over all the hosts of heaven (all the other angels) and all the other intelligent life in the universe would be a bad idea, that His disobedience to the Divine Law was deserving of death and why it was necessary we be subject to God's Law we are given the scenario in which we find ourselves in now. Lucifer was made ruler of this Earth to show what kind of a ruler he would be and to show His true character. The example of what happens on this Earth is of paramount importance to all of Heaven and the rest of the Universe of why God is justified in erasing someone from existence if they choose to live outside of the Divine Law. That is recorded for all of time here will show what kind of heart ache murder causes, stealing, lying ect ect....God has His perfect Divine Law (the Moral Law) at stake in this whole affair of our creation, His principles that lead to perfect harmony in the world. Harley says that his theory is a unifying theory of religion...do those two points that I just described of how much our Creator cares for us and how important He places our creation get conveyed at all in his 'unifying theory'. Just the opposite. The message of his theory is anti-Christian (by making God less and less) so it will not draw any Christian's to it....if it's mandate was to properly represent Christianity and unify it to other religions then it has failed. If it's mandate was to be a message inspired and given by God then it was fallen short of that mandate. Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! --- A good test of the value of Harley's unifying theory would be for him to go to Saudi Arabia, tell them that Allah was caused by 'statistical randomness' and see whether his head will be still unified with his neck!!!

Incoherent rambling; what does this have to do with anything and where was the debunking of what he said? According to the Law of Analogy, which I posted links with; If a man and woman could create life; then why could the two opposite forces analogous to this not do the same thing. What do you think would happen if CERN was to actually collide a proton with an electron instead of two protons smashing together? You asked me to create the a planet similar to Mars; I don't have to. I have the ability to create life, a child, that is 100 billion more times incredibly complex, beautiful, and unique.

I don't wish to argue anymore; simply because I can see that you would not budge on your views, so why waste my finger energy? I have no interest in anything you say; because forgive me but I doubt very seriously any science that you could show me saying that Pangea is a myth but the Earth being 8000 years old isn't, or that Dinosaurs lived then too....

I'm sorry but if Pangea was a myth; then why is it that all the parts of land can generally be fitted together to form one main piece with a few missing due to rising sea levels since then. Your entire theory is ridiculous so

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by JesuitGarlic

 

ok
well the fine tuning argument isn’t as useful as you seem to think

first - if the universe didn’t have the values it does we probably wouldn’t be here to have this discussion

2 - even if the universe was fine tuned it still doesn’t mean that bible god done it – anyone with a god can claim his/her god done it – and the bible god claim fall over anyway when you see passages in the bible supporting a flat earth view of the world

I am glad for your post racasan....your first point is the line of thought that is typically raised by people about this point. I would like the thread to discuss this point.

Your second point is not so relevant in the scheme of things...The fine tuning argument is specifically for dividing people between having a naturalistic/atheistic/pantheistic view of the world and the view of a supernatural intelligence/deistic view of the world. The topic isn't to identify who did it (I will be doing that probably in a 1.5-2 weeks time when I get up to proving the supernatural inspiration of the Bible, and people can use their counter information then), the topic is to identify WHAT did it.
---------
This is the basic argument racasan, with all the parameters we know that as so incredibly fine tune to the trillionth trillionth trillionth ect degree of accuracy to enable this conversation to happen then the only alternative it seems to the explanation of a supernatural intelligence outside of space-time would be for an unlimited amount of parallel dud universes to also exist and not only this but a naturalistic answer to how this parameters can be varied and where the unlimited energy came from to power all those universe creating attempts?

So that is the issue that I raise to the naturalist approach:....
- can you explain the naturalistic mechanism which would vary the physical laws of the universe to an infinite degree and explain where the energy came from to enable trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion...full energy attempts? Where did the many universe machine come from? What do people think about the concept of multi-universes existing?

I will explain the predicament of the naturalists with an analogy....let's say that you have a box full of letters of the alphabet and you put a stick of dynamite (to create the random variation) in their. Is it reasonable to assume when those letters come out of the box and fall in all many of direction it will ever fall in a way that writes Shakespeare's book Romeo and Juliet?

I will put it to you that no known physics can explain where unlimited energy came from out of nothing to make the naturalistic multiuniverse escape hatch sound reasonable. And no known physics can explain the full mechanism that would infinitely vary all the key parameters of the universe across their full range

The argument that I will raise for (pro) the deistic side (rather than just against the naturalistic side) is the argument of the beauty and simplicity of the laws of physics.

I will pick up this argument from book I was quoting from before....Chapter 6 of 'The Case of a Creator' (investigative journalist Lee Strobel interviewing Robin Collins)

"Think about the extraordinary beauty, elegance, harmony, and ingenuity that we find in the laws of nature," he replied as we headed back to the conference room.

"Whole books have been written about it. Weinberg once spent an entire chapter explaining how the criteria of beauty and elegance have been used to guide physicists in formulating the right laws.`' The theoretical physicist Alan Guth said that the original construction of the gauge theories of fundamental particle physics `was motivated mainly by their mathematical elegance.'4

"One of the most influential scientists of the twentieth century, Paul Dirac, the Nobel Prize winner from Cambridge, even claimed that `it is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit experiment.'” One historian said mathematical beauty was ,an integral part' of Dirac's strategy. He said Dirac believed physicists `first had to select the most beautiful mathematics-not necessarily connected to the existing basis of theoretical physics-and then interpret them in physical terms."'

"And you see beauty in the laws and principles of nature?" I asked.

"Oh. absolutely," he declared. "They're beautiful, and they're also elegant in their simplicity. Surprisingly so. When scientists are trying to construct a new law of nature, they routinely look for the simplest law that adequately accounts for the data."

I interrupted with an objection. "Isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder?" I asked. "What's beautiful seems so subjective."

"Subjectivity can't explain the success of the criterion of beauty in science," he replied. "We wouldn't expect purely subjective patterns to serve as the basis of theories that make highly accurate predictions, such as the success of quantum electrodynamics to predict the quantum correction to the g-factor of the electron.

"Besides, not all beauty is subjective; there are also objective aspects of it, at least in the classical sense. In his book The Analysis of Beauty, written in the mid-1700s, William Hogarth said the defining feature of beauty or elegance is `simplicity with variety.' And that's what scientists have found-a world where fundamental simplicity gives rise to the enormous complexity needed for life."
...
"In physics, we see an uncanny degree of harmony, symmetry, and proportionality. And we see something that I call 'discoverability.' By that, I mean that the laws of nature seem to have been carefully arranged so that they can be discovered by beings with our level of intelligence. That not only fits the idea of design, but it also suggests a providential purpose for humankind-that is, to learn about our habitat and to develop science and technology."

Comment away people...How do you explain your world given this information and what the limits of science are and the beauty and simplicity of the laws of nature (as simplicity and elegance would not be characteristic of chaotic non-directed 'statistical randomness' do you agree?)

Pangaea proponents...please re-arrange the Earth's plates to create your mythical world