God Did It! The rest is post modern chatter!

originally posted by: [post=20644161]edmc^2
Sure - the letters - F = ma represents something but what they represent didn't and can't just construct itself.

The forces that are represented by the said symbols had to be formulated and precisely calculated using a higher form of mathematics.

But how would you do this without consciousness? Furthermore, how would these precise forces form in such orderly fashion as opposed to random fashion

Why would consciousness have to construct them at all??? You're just insisting that some consciousness had to come up with them but why??? If that's the only way the universe would work then it's the only configuration possible for it. Since there are no other options available it's not a random chance that it would happen, it's a certainty.

I also don't know why it has to be a higher form of mathematics as it seems our form of mathematics explains it just fine.

Case in point:

Consider Kepler's Planetary:

Calculations Using Kepler's Third Law
It's accurately predictable!!!

What does this mean?

It means that the ratio and proportion and distances of planets are not products of mere blind chance but consciousness.

They were put there by a conscious mind.

It means human being are pretty smart and good with math to have figured that out. But where does the consciousness come in to play??? What evidence do you have to show that a consciousness is needed for that to happen??? Obviously one is needed to explain it using some kind of math and create a formula to show how it works, but why must there be one for it to happen in the first place???

There are patterns within numbers. There are certain universal regularities and anomalies that exist. But what you're saying is that they are not possible naturally. In a sense that nature basically doesn't exist and everything must be acted upon by a super conscious mind to exist. But why??? Why are those things not just a natural phenomenon??

Is it not possible for you to be in awe of how magnificent and amazing Nature is without insisting some God is responsible for it??? It's almost like you refuse to accept how amazing an unbiased, neutral, natural thing of beauty the universe is unless it came from some authority figure like God. Even worse is you go a step further and also insist that the Nature/God be a thinking, emotional specific God too. Why not just let nature be the wonder which you enjoy noticing for it's amazing qualities???

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: edmc^2

Why use the word "nothing"? He could have used something else but chose "nothing"?

Why use the word hang when it doesn't?

Why not say "and the world is a ball which circles the Sun forever?" Not entirely true of course, but poetic and much closer to reality.

simple question - why nothing instead of something?

Because it sounds awesome. And ignorant. Which Job and everyone else was at the time, concerning the nature of the Earth.

As to your question - kindly please ask again?

You can't scroll back a bit?

"and the world is a ball which circles the Sun forever?"

Now put that into three simple poetic nomadic words.

So, it's not hanging then? Job was wrong?

OK - suspended if you think Job was wrong for using "hanging".

a reply to: edmc^2

You say you aren't giving any meaning to that scripture is a lie. It's you who says its proof of God so yes you are giving meaning to "hangs on nothing". Also the earth is not hanging at all hanging implies it is stable and unmoving yet we know it isn't. Face it your arguement has no glue to hold it together.

a reply to: edmc^2

Its not suspended either...

its moving... so is the star we orbit...

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: edmc^2

Stick to the subject. What is the earth resting on?

The Earth is not resting. It is falling.

Ok - what's the earth falling on?

It is falling tward the sun, the speed is just so great it arcs around it, creating an orbit.

It's gravity 101.

Everything is moving, nothing is at rest.

ok - we're making progress - GRAVITY - when was gravity discovered?

What was this force before it was called "gravity"?

More importantly, is it visible or invisible?

It's invisible.


At least as far as humanity is concerned, it had no name before gravity.

Are you implying it didn't exist before Newton began unraveling its properties????

Lol

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: FairyThorne
a reply to: edmc^2

By clearly stating that the piece of 'evidence' that you are using to base what appears to be the body of your theory is not in fact correct, the earth is by no means of the word 'hanging'. Not only that but your body of evidence, the bible, is a book that has been continually edited and reworded over time, meaning that you cannot prove anything quantifiable with it, it is not in its original state.

Like I said - the Book of Job was written in poetry, hence, the words reflected it.

So without using any of the modern scientific jargon like the earth was being suspended, held in place by an invisible force called gravity, the writer simply stated - "hangs on nothing".

Why use the word "nothing"? He could have used something else but chose "nothing"?

Was it coincidence?

Aristotle used "sphere within a sphere" which we now know to be incorrect.

So how did the writer know?

simple question - why nothing instead of something?

BTW - if you don't like the word "hanging" let me use "suspended" since other Bible use that word.

Suspended is also not a valid term. If the writer of Job truly had divine knowledge why not say the earth is moving or swinging or flying ?

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: edmc^2

The subject is not the orbit or the rotation of the earth or the sun but the location of the earth in space.

The Earth is constantly moving through space. Both around the Sun and around the galaxy. And, in fact, along with the galaxy. Its location is always changing

Here is what you asked:

So where did the writer of Job get the information from - c 3400 years ago?

You

Job 26:7 says - "the earth is hanging on nothing"

It's not about orbit or rotation.

Stick to the subject. What is the earth resting on?

So how do you explain the creation of the sun and stars, AFTER the earth, oceans and fish?

It's really easy to isolate one verse and give it whatever meaning you want. The original context intended isn't anything like modern science..

Three simple words "hangs on nothing" - there's not much to misinterpret from it. It's people like you who likes to put a different twist to it.

""hangs on nothing" doesn't say anything about rotation or orbit. It's only saying the "earth hangs on nothing".

I'm not giving any meaning to it.

Where do see orbit or rotation in there?

My point is, that you cannot claim the biblical account is accurate, without explaining, at least the majority of it scientifically.

You are ignoring all of the verses that contradict your theory. While latching on to one or 2( out of thousands), and claiming they are proof.

Which is ridiculous

a reply to: edmc^2

Now put that into three simple poetic nomadic words.

I don't speak nomad.
And neither did those who wrote the Bible.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Achilles92x
a reply to: mOjOm

Thanks for the reply MOjOm.
I have an answer for why that an eternal consciousness created a universe that took eons to cool, shape, and support life. It's not provable, but really nothing when we're speaking of the uncaused cause really is... But I would argue it's logical.
-Clearly if there is a creator he created the laws of the universe. Thermodynamics, motion, etc.
-God is not bound by time and space-he created them
-thus, allowing the universe he intended to form develop over billions and billions of years would not negatively impact him. He wasn't waiting around, he exists outside of time.
- The universe forming this way, however, is consistent with the laws he created. If I'm not mistaken, the formation of the universe has been and will continue to be pivotal in the progression of science. Imagine if our understanding of Gravity was inconsistent with what we could tell about the universe's formation!

Where did God gain the information to create anything at all? He didn't need to "gain" any information. There's a reason God is called Yahweh... "I am." "He is." "I will be."
Does it honestly make sense to ask that question as an argument when you ignore the question, "where did the non-conscious universe gain any its content or properties? Where did it gain its laws, energy, matter, or forces? Where did it gain whatever has led it to its current state? Why did it lead to life?" To be honest, I struggled to word that, so hopefully that made sense.

while I agree that a timeless God, could wait out billions of years the universe took to form. That is not the logical conclusion. Because an all powerful God shouldn't need to wait. He could wait, but that would be horribly inefficient.

So because the all powerful God described in the bible could do something is irrelevant when talking about what's logical,for 2 reasons.

A: there is nothing he can't do. You can't say a specific thing is logical for him to do, when there is nothing you would agree that he can't do.

B: the logical decision is almost always considered the most efficient decision, and waiting billions of years, when you don't have to is the opposite of efficient.

I don't see what you're arguing. A God who exists beyond time and space wouldn't be waiting while billions of years passed within the universe. You're looking at God as if He's a human being experiencing time. He's not. I can't entirely explain what it would be like to exist outside of time and space, but Billions of years would essentially be instantaneous for him. What I was saying was that God created the laws of the universe, and that our understanding of the laws of the universe through physics, chemistry, etc. comes partially from what we can determine about how the universe developed. If Genesis was shown to be true, science would crumble. I'm advocating that science glorifies God and his creation, that the two are NOT incompatible. He wants us to study the sciences.

a reply to: Achilles92x

Genesis has been shown to be false. And many other books in the bible. I'm not saying that it's impossible for their to be dieties however there is no evidence of them to date.

originally posted by: Achilles92x

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Achilles92x
a reply to: mOjOm

Thanks for the reply MOjOm.
I have an answer for why that an eternal consciousness created a universe that took eons to cool, shape, and support life. It's not provable, but really nothing when we're speaking of the uncaused cause really is... But I would argue it's logical.
-Clearly if there is a creator he created the laws of the universe. Thermodynamics, motion, etc.
-God is not bound by time and space-he created them
-thus, allowing the universe he intended to form develop over billions and billions of years would not negatively impact him. He wasn't waiting around, he exists outside of time.
- The universe forming this way, however, is consistent with the laws he created. If I'm not mistaken, the formation of the universe has been and will continue to be pivotal in the progression of science. Imagine if our understanding of Gravity was inconsistent with what we could tell about the universe's formation!

Where did God gain the information to create anything at all? He didn't need to "gain" any information. There's a reason God is called Yahweh... "I am." "He is." "I will be."
Does it honestly make sense to ask that question as an argument when you ignore the question, "where did the non-conscious universe gain any its content or properties? Where did it gain its laws, energy, matter, or forces? Where did it gain whatever has led it to its current state? Why did it lead to life?" To be honest, I struggled to word that, so hopefully that made sense.

This post was in reply to another one claiming "that since God is timeless, it would be logical for God to wait the billions of years we know the universe has existed. To create the center piece of the universe, man."









while I agree that a timeless God, could wait out billions of years the universe took to form. That is not the logical conclusion. Because an all powerful God shouldn't need to wait. He could wait, but that would be horribly inefficient.

So because the all powerful God described in the bible could do something is irrelevant when talking about what's logical,for 2 reasons.

A: there is nothing he can't do. You can't say a specific thing is logical for him to do, when there is nothing you would agree that he can't do.

B: the logical decision is almost always considered the most efficient decision, and waiting billions of years, when you don't have to is the opposite of efficient.

I don't see what you're arguing. A God who exists beyond time and space wouldn't be waiting while billions of years passed within the universe. You're looking at God as if He's a human being experiencing time. He's not. I can't entirely explain what it would be like to exist outside of time and space, but Billions of years would essentially be instantaneous for him. What I was saying was that God created the laws of the universe, and that our understanding of the laws of the universe through physics, chemistry, etc. comes partially from what we can determine about how the universe developed. If Genesis was shown to be true, science would crumble. I'm advocating that science glorifies God and his creation, that the two are NOT incompatible. He wants us to study the sciences.

originally posted by: Achilles92x

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Achilles92x
a reply to: mOjOm

Thanks for the reply MOjOm.
I have an answer for why that an eternal consciousness created a universe that took eons to cool, shape, and support life. It's not provable, but really nothing when we're speaking of the uncaused cause really is... But I would argue it's logical.
-Clearly if there is a creator he created the laws of the universe. Thermodynamics, motion, etc.
-God is not bound by time and space-he created them
-thus, allowing the universe he intended to form develop over billions and billions of years would not negatively impact him. He wasn't waiting around, he exists outside of time.
- The universe forming this way, however, is consistent with the laws he created. If I'm not mistaken, the formation of the universe has been and will continue to be pivotal in the progression of science. Imagine if our understanding of Gravity was inconsistent with what we could tell about the universe's formation!

Where did God gain the information to create anything at all? He didn't need to "gain" any information. There's a reason God is called Yahweh... "I am." "He is." "I will be."
Does it honestly make sense to ask that question as an argument when you ignore the question, "where did the non-conscious universe gain any its content or properties? Where did it gain its laws, energy, matter, or forces? Where did it gain whatever has led it to its current state? Why did it lead to life?" To be honest, I struggled to word that, so hopefully that made sense.

while I agree that a timeless God, could wait out billions of years the universe took to form. That is not the logical conclusion. Because an all powerful God shouldn't need to wait. He could wait, but that would be horribly inefficient.

So because the all powerful God described in the bible could do something is irrelevant when talking about what's logical,for 2 reasons.

A: there is nothing he can't do. You can't say a specific thing is logical for him to do, when there is nothing you would agree that he can't do.

B: the logical decision is almost always considered the most efficient decision, and waiting billions of years, when you don't have to is the opposite of efficient.

I don't see what you're arguing. A God who exists beyond time and space wouldn't be waiting while billions of years passed within the universe. You're looking at God as if He's a human being experiencing time. He's not. I can't entirely explain what it would be like to exist outside of time and space, but Billions of years would essentially be instantaneous for him. What I was saying was that God created the laws of the universe, and that our understanding of the laws of the universe through physics, chemistry, etc. comes partially from what we can determine about how the universe developed. If Genesis was shown to be true, science would crumble. I'm advocating that science glorifies God and his creation, that the two are NOT incompatible. He wants us to study the sciences.

This post was in reply to another one claiming "that since God is timeless, it would be logical for God to wait the billions of years we know the universe has existed. To create his center piece, man."

I was just pointing out that just because someone/thing COULD do something. Does not make it the logical conclusion. I could bust up in Wendy's and start shooting. That doesn't mean that shooting up a Wendy's is logically what I will do.

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: Achilles92x

Genesis has been shown to be false. And many other books in the bible. I'm not saying that it's impossible for their to be dieties however there is no evidence of them to date.

And shouldn't there be?

Literally, for thousands of years, nearly every human on the planet has searched for some proof their religion is true. Yet in all that time, what proof can we point to?

Hear say....

a reply to: JoshuaCox

People (on both sides of the debate) need to get over the "proving" or "disproving" their religions veracity game. Religion is an act of faith, faith requires no proof, just belief. Similarly the sciences need no faith, just evidence.

Neither religion nor spirituality need be mutually exclusive. Really they do not, as they are concerned with different things. The problems occur when people from one side, stick their nose into the other. Mostly it seems to be be the spiritual side stomping around in the sciences, demanding all sorts of concessions. Which is a sign of weak faith

a reply to: Noinden

One the other hand...

It would be an outright lie to say science makes no assumptions or "leaps of faith"
when supposing what fragmentary evidence eludes to...

I guess that's weak science...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Would it not also be an outright lie to say the bible or any "holy book" is meant to be a science book?

Or that it contains science in any way shape or form... aside from vague allusions to things that aren't even remotely scientifically based...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Okay then let's go over the Ark story. Provide your case for how it's possible ? Over 100,000 birds would have been needed over 900,000 infects would have been needed over 60,000 mammals would have been needed. That alone is not possible.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

No the opposite of religion stomping is science, based solely of faith, would science jumping up and down in spirituality using evidence to try and disprove what the spirituality in question takes on faith.

Just as a mature spiritual path will take things on faith, a mature science will use evidence not faith.

I understand you and your fellow creationists really REALLY want religion to be a religion. Its not.

Scence is the intellectual andsystematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Religion (lets uses that rather than the whole religion vs spiritualtiy thing the new age gets into) is the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Note, one is observation of the physical and natural world the other is a belief in something. One does not have belief, the other does not have experiment.

a reply to: Joecanada11

Also given the number of insectivores on that boat, many species would have ended if someone took a snack. Similarly carnivores. Any zoo-handler will tell you how bloody sneaky a hungry predator is.

a reply to: Akragon

It may be a dated science book but it contains science...
So I don't really agree the mathematics alone says that is not true...
Then you could take the information about the importance of building on a rock foundation...
Etc...
So I say you are wrong...
So not all Science contained in the bible is outdated...
And some things were far ahead of thier time...
Like the fact Stars make noise as referenced in the bible as those singing stars...
Such things are in direct correlation with science and are accurate...