God Did It! The rest is post modern chatter!

I'd just like to say this.

Not being able to disprove something does NOT mean something is there.

Look up Russells teapot.

a reply to: Agartha

Ignorance is bliss...

As for the figure of Joachim/Imran, he is revered by Muslims for being the father of Mary and the grandfather of Jesus and also for being one of the Prophets of God with the Prophet Zachariah, as his successor. By tradition, Imran's wife was Hannah, the Catholic Saint Anne.
Santi gioacchino e anna.jpg

Saints Joachim and Anne, parents of the Virgin Mary
Father of the Blessed Virgin Mary; Confessor
Born 100 BC unknown real day
Jerusalem
Died unknown
Jerusalem
Venerated in Catholic Church
Orthodox Churches
Anglican Communion
Aglipayan Church
Islam
en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

You're a Christian, aren't you? You believe in God, Jesus, Mary, heaven and so on?

Why is being a Christian correct, but being a Pastafarian not?

a reply to: edmc^2

Because you have bones when you come out of the womb, and we have known women had a womb long before we knew this was a planet.

With a high infant mortality rate, I'm sure seeing baby bones was semi common.

Honestly, you can't see the holes in that logic???



A book is not a copy of digital information. Digital information is the end result of the evolution of books. So the bible referring to a book, is not at all proof they know digital info was comming...

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: edmc^2

You can't use metaphors as evidence of science in a story book lol.

Ok - please enlighten me then how are these metaphors?

"When my bones were being formed,
carefully put together in my mother's womb,
when I was growing there in secret,
you knew that I was there—
16 you saw me before I was born.
The days allotted to me
had all been recorded in your book,
before any of them ever began."

And may I add, metaphors of what?

a reply to: edmc^2

It's a metaphor about conception through to birth. Basically it's poetry, nothing more.

a reply to: TerryDon79

If what I believe is true which obviously it would be true to me...
Than your question is redundant because of my truth...

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: edmc^2

It's a metaphor about conception through to birth. Basically it's poetry, nothing more.

That I do agree but it's more than that!

If we looked at it closer and pay attention to what's being said - what is the "book" being referred to here?

As in "recorded in your book before any of them ever began".

If the whole thing is a metaphor for conception to birth - what's the "book" metaphor for?

double post

a reply to: edmc^2

The "recorded in your book" is a metaphor for gods book. That is the record he keeps for all living things being born and dieing.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79

If what I believe is true which obviously it would be true to me...
Than your question is redundant because of my truth...

Truth? No

Faith? Yes

Your Christianity has as much faith as any other religion. Truth can't be known till you know the answers. To know the answers there must be proof. You have no proof of God, therefore you have no truth, only faith.

God is all about faith and not about truth.

Russells teapot.

There's a teapot in an orbit around the sun between Earth and Mars. If you can prove me wrong number, that would disprove the teapot orbittting the sun. If you can't prove me wrong, that means there is be a teapot orbittting the sun.

That is actually a false statement because lack of proof for the opposite doesn't mean it is true.

The same goes for God.

Just because we can't prove or disprove God, does not mean God does or doesn't exist.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Well it is a different type of truth. Its why I post the gnosis vs eidein dichotomy. A belief is a truth to the believer(s) while an intellectual truth is measurable. It may sound like a quibble, but philosophy lives on those

a reply to: Noinden

I'm sorry, but a personal truth of God is still faith as you can't prove that God is there. Same as I can't prove God isn't there.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Etymologically speaking truth means "consistency" thus if the gnosis (spiritual truth) is consistent, then it is "truth". I know this is quibbling. I have just had this dance of meanings before, in my own spiritual setting.

So truth via triewð (West Saxon), treowð (Mercian) "faith, faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty; veracity, quality of being true; pledge, covenant,". That in many ways fits faith, better than it fits science.

Now the fun thing about English, and most other Indo-European languages, is that there is no primary verb for a contrast to lie. Irish is an exception (fírinne, with lie being éitheach)

Needless to say I am an IE etymology geek, the meaning of words is important in my faith

It is why scientists do not generally talk "truth" rather than "evidence". Truth can be subjective, evidence is not.

a reply to: Noinden

Which is why I said a personal truth (such as God) is faith.

Don't get me wrong. You can always have an argument for or against a deity (or deities ), but it doesn't make him/her/it real.

Again, Russells teapot. It's too small for any of the space agencies to detect with current equipment and too far away for you to see it through an observatory. Just because it can't be detected doesn't mean it is or isn't there.

I'm an atheist. I don't have a belief in God because there's no evidence. Doesn't mean there isn't one. I'll just have to wait to die to find out.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle

If what I believe is true which obviously it would be true to me...
Than your question is redundant because of my truth...

That depends on whether or not your belief goes beyond just yourself. A belief can be true in a couple ways. One is if it's true overall and for everyone. As in it's true we all live on planet earth.

Another way would be if it's true for you only and doesn't effect anything else. As in it's true you love your wife. If you believe you love her then you do.

However, if your belief isn't true for everyone and/or involves things outside your own mind then it's not true at all.

originally posted by: edmc^2

To quote one writer who said:

“The idea of the genome as a book is not, strictly speaking, even a metaphor. It is literally true. A book is a piece of digital information . . . So is a genome.” ...“The genome is a very clever book, because in the right conditions it can both photocopy itself and read itself.”

Ok that is just false. The fact that it is a "writer" who even wrote that means he's a pretty bad "writer".

The Human Genome is NOT a Book. That statement isn't in any way "literally true". It is "literally false". A book is a bunch of text on pages with a cover on it. It's not a scroll, a parchment, a tablet and sure as hell isn't a genome.

In fact saying the genome is a book is exactly what a metaphor is. You can say it is figuratively true. But the genome isn't a book. As a writer they should really know the difference and so should you.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
I'd just like to say this.

Not being able to disprove something does NOT mean something is there.

Look up Russells teapot.

In inferential statistics, the term "null hypothesis" usually refers to a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no difference among groups.[1] Rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis—and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena (e.g. that a potential treatment has a measurable effect)—is a central task in the modern practice of science, and gives a precise criterion for rejecting a hypothesis.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: TzarChasm

Exactly.

I can't disprove God as much as I can prove God. Therefore (for me) it leaves it at a maybe, might be, I'll wait and see when I die.