Real Science Friday: Mathematics: Is God Silent? by James Nickel

[Granite]

You asked if Bob thinks he's smarter than the scientists he picks on. I don't think Barbarian or I or any other person on ToL can answer that. How would anyone but Bob himself know that?

Well that's good, Tom, next time when I throw out a question I'll be sure to remember that you won't offer your own personal opinion.

So I simply suggested that you call him and find out.

You couldn't pay me enough to waste my time like that.:greedy:

Pick a scientist and ask Bob if he thinks he's smarter than Christopher Hitchens for example.

Uh, what? Hitchens isn't a scientist. Not followin' ya there. I thought I'd asked a fairly simple question. You don't need to run interference for Enyart. If the man puts himself out there as some kind of authority I'd like to know what level of expertise he thinks he possesses--and I'd like to know at what level you think the reverend might be.

 

[voltaire]

Nonscriptural miracle asserted:


Barbarian observes:
Unless your Bible is very different than mine, that's not Biblical at all.
Show me that verse.

The verse highlighted in yellow.

In fact, it doesn't even hint at it. Nothing at all about elements or radioactive isotopes at all. You just added that to make His word more acceptable to you.

The bible doesn't speak about elements or radioactive isotopes. I did not say the verse says that. The verse says what God did on day 3. Do you understand that? Do you understand that there are multiple ways he could do that? Do you understand that God's actions on day day 3 would necessarily involve all the elements that exist on this earth? He created them after all. He could have placed all elements in the earth haphazardly or he could have place them with a purpose. Do you deny that? Once again, you are being deceptive. Just because the verse doesn't go into all the details of what happened on day 3 and how it was accomplished doesn't mean that any speculation on the matter is false. I have never stated that the bible says God one particular action. I was uncareful when I stated that God place potassium 39 and 41 in the original crust in that i did not make it clear that I was stating a possibility. I thought you would understand that by now. I think you do understand that but are deliberately twisting what I meant to say to undermine my credibility.

Repeating it won't make it work any better. Making up new miracles to cover for problems in your ideas is a bad practice.

I did not make up any miracles for the thousandth time. I was unclear,at first, in that I did not at first state that it was a possibility allowed by the verse and not a certainty. I have explained that to you now several times but you keep repeating the false accusation that I made up a miracle.

Just pointing out the fact. God doesn't speak of this at all. You just added it.

No, you are not pointing out any fact at all. You are deliberately misrepresenting me. Of course does not directly speak about potassium or any of it's isotopes. I never claimed he did. You are lying about me when you say I do that. It was excusable before I made myself clear, but you continue to misrepresent what I said. If you are thick instead on this matter on not really trying to misrepresent me, let me state it again. The placing of particular isotopes of Potassium in the original crust of the earth is a POSSIBILITY allowed by the general nature of the action described in the verse. The verse tells us God seperated dry land from water. There are a myriad of ways God could have done that. The bible does not specify which method God used to do that. All I am saying is that the placement of the elements was designed for a purpose and not haphazard. The bible speaks of dry land and dry land certainly consists of elements so the bible does indirectly speak of elements. Don't you think God was deliberate in the choice of which elements became part of dry land? The verse doesn't say it but the again the verse doesn't say God paid no attention whatsoever to the placement of elements in the dry land.

But of course, with God all things are possible, so by your logic, we can imagine anything happened, and declare that God said so.

I never said that God declared for potassium isotope in any verse. I never meant it at any rate and I have explained myself over and over again on it.
Barbarian asks:
Can't find anything on sorting of radioactive isotopes. Where is that verse?

The highlighted verse ALLOWS for the possibility. It doesn't speak to it directly, and i have repeated this to you over and over. got to get to class now.

Is there one hinting at it? Show us.



Barbarian observes:
Nature is His tool. If he took His attention from it, it would not even exist.



For example, He used nature to make you, did He not?



You misunderstand. Nature is His creation as much as anything else.



Pleased to hear you admit it.

Barbarian suggests:
Scripture does not say how God accomplished this seperation.
So why not just accept that He did it the way the evidence shows He did it?

 

[Squishes]

Turns out dogs have it, too:

The new study, published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is part of a growing body of research showing that many social animals, including dogs, wolves and marmosets, have emotions previously considered unique to humans. While biologists have long thought that mammals experience primary emotions like fear, more recent studies have found strong evidence that a range of animals also feel more nuanced, secondary emotions like a sense of fairness.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/dogenvy/

Frans de Waal's work with chimps and bonobos shows with certainty that the components of our moral cognition is near universal throughout higher mammals.

 

[TeeJay]

Barbarian,

This is probably the most important post you will ever read on ToL. Please open your mind a bit and at least consider what I'm telling you. I know where you are at because I was once there. I was born and raised an Irish Catholic. After reading your answer to my salvation question, I must warn you.

First, if you died right now, you would not go to Purgatory. Purgatory does not exist. But your wife and family will be writing checks to a priest to pray you out of Purgatory. And how long you stay in Purgatory will be contingent on how much money you leave in your will. That money goes directly to Rome. Every Catholic Church in the world sends this money to Rome.

You answered that you will not go to hell because there is "no mortal sins on your soul." So, what you are saying is that it is not Jesus Christ who is keeping you out of Hell. You are keeping yourself out of Hell because you have not committed a mortal sin. Paul asked, "If you could do it on your own, why did Jesus have to die? [paraphrased]"

You wrote that God allows us to turn our backs on Him. I could not agree more. But we must also remember that when we turn our backs on Him, He turns His back on us. C.S. Lewis wrote: God says, "My will be done." The atheist says, "No. My will be done." And God replies, "Okay." You can't come to Jesus on your terms or the Catholic terms.

You wrote, "No man knows until the end." Is this true? I am not going to tell you unless you ask me to do so. I am withholding salvation from you. Is this Christ-like of me? Jesus Christ withheld salvation from the hard-hearted chief priests and elders of the people in Matthew 21:23. They asked Jesus, "By what authority are you doing these things? And who gave You this authority?" The answer to their question contrained salvation. But Jesus withheld salvation from them.

I can show you that you can indeed KNOW WITH CERTAINTY whether you are going to Hell or Heaven. Are you interested?

The Sin of Presumption

There are two kinds of presumption. Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), or he presumes upon God's almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit.

Stop and reason for a moment. If there is a place called heaven, a paradise wonderful beyond imagination, and if there is a place of eternal torment called hell, wouldn't a loving God tell us how to obtain one and avoid the other?
Would God make us endure an entire lifetime, never knowing how we could escape the flames of hell and be assured of enjoying paradise with Him?

Would a loving God say, "Do as many good works as you can, then keep your fingers crossed and hope for the best when you stand before Me someday."

You can dig your heels in on how Genesis should be interpreted and even if your are wrong, you confusion will not keep you out of Heaven. There will be many confused men and women in Heaven (including me). But if you dig your heels in and believe what your church has taught you, the consequences are dire beyond measure.

Tom

 

[The Barbarian]

This is probably the most important post you will ever read on ToL. Please open your mind a bit and at least consider what I'm telling you.

Tom, I've been familiar all my life with your kind of alteration to Christian faith. I put my faith in God, not men's adjustments to it.

You lost your faith, because you thought you couldn't live up to God's rules. But you can. You don't need a new set of rules, you need to accept God's.

First, if you died right now, you would not go to Purgatory. Purgatory does not exist. But your wife and family will be writing checks to a priest to pray you out of Purgatory.

This is why it's so unlikely that you were really a Catholic. If you honestly believe that's what Catholics do, you were never a Catholic.

And how long you stay in Purgatory will be contingent on how much money you leave in your will. That money goes directly to Rome. Every Catholic Church in the world sends this money to Rome.

Tom, do you think I haven't heard that kind of silliness before? There are guys who make a living thinking up "more bad stuff about Catholics."

You answered that you will not go to hell because there is "no mortal sins on your soul." So, what you are saying is that it is not Jesus Christ who is keeping you out of Hell.

Of course it is. From where do you think the grace for that comes?

You are keeping yourself out of Hell because you have not committed a mortal sin.

I could never do it without Christ, as the Catholic Church teaches.

There are two possibilities Tom. Either you were never a Catholic, and you were gulled into believing all of that as the teachings of the Church, or you're hoping I am not a very good Catholic, and don't know that you're telling me all these fables.

You wrote that God allows us to turn our backs on Him. I could not agree more.

Then why not just accept the rest of His word?

You wrote, "No man knows until the end." Is this true?

Yes. If you will it to turn your back on God, He will allow you to do so at any time. You are free, and will remain so.

I am withholding salvation from you.

Even the Pope can't do that, Tom. Only I can withhold salvation from me.

Is this Christ-like of me?

There are those in certain Protestant sects thing that they can "withhold salvation" from others, but they are merely shutting God out from their lives.

Jesus Christ withheld salvation from the hard-hearted chief priests and elders of the people in Matthew 21:23. They asked Jesus, "By what authority are you doing these things? And who gave You this authority?" The answer to their question contrained salvation. But Jesus withheld salvation from them.

You are not Jesus, Tom. You are just Tom.

Stop and reason for a moment. If there is a place called heaven, a paradise wonderful beyond imagination, and if there is a place of eternal torment called hell, wouldn't a loving God tell us how to obtain one and avoid the other?

Here, in the Gospel of Matthew 25, He tells you:

31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.


You can accept it, and be saved, or deny it and lose any hope of spending eternity with Him. Chose wisely, Tom.

Would a loving God say, "Do as many good works as you can, then keep your fingers crossed and hope for the best when you stand before Me someday."

Read His words and decide for yourself. If you do His will you won't have to keep your fingers crossed, will you? Trust him, not the word of men. If you dig your heels in and believe what other men have taught you, the consequences are dire beyond measure.

 

[TeeJay]

=Squishes;2725471]Did you read my link on "category error"?

Squishes,

Was it a link? As I recall, you said, "Google category error." I did not google, but I got a dusty logic book down from by bookshelf and refreshed my understanding of logical fallacies of category error. Now I'm not an expert on logic and I did not go to college. Apparently you must be more schooled on laws of logic than I. I must be missing something?

I originally posted, "We know that A equals C because we have already proved they are both equal to B. Chemicals and molecules will not tell us this is true."

You responded, "Of course not. Chemicals cause things but don't justify things." To which I would agree wholeheartedly. That's my argument. You as an atheist argue that reasoning is simply the motion of chemicals in the brain. If that is true, then you yourself agreed that chemicals do not justify.

Now, laws of logic can't be violated. Barbarian is guilty of the fallacy of reification when he attributes a concrete or personal characteristic to a conceptional abstraction, i.e. "science tells us this or science does that rather than scientists tells us things. It doesn't seem to bother him.

But I believe the laws of logic are immaterial, invariant, and universal. They can't be violated. If you can show me that I violated a law of logic, then I will be quick to repent and withdraw my post. Promise!

I'm not arguing that I did not. Perhaps I did?

Atheism is not a denial of abstract objects; it is a denial of the existence of God.

But an atheist can't justify abstract objects within his worldview. These things make no sense in an atheist universe. If humans are just the accidental result of chemistry working over time, why would they be deserving of respect? Would we hold a funeral service for few pounds of baking soda that were destroyed reacting to vinegar?

Abstract qualities like justice, liberty, dignity, respect presuppose the Biblical worldview. According to Genesis, God made man in His own image (Gen. 1:26-27). As image bearers of God, humans are deserving of a certain level of respect and dignity. God gave Adam the power of choice (Gen. 2:16-17) and held him responsible for his actions (Gen. 3:17-19).

Athesits can believe in these abstract qualities, but in doing so they are forced to step out of their atheist worldview into the theist worldview and affirm theism true and atheism false.

Of course I don't have a rational reason. I am simply born believing it. It's the same with you and the same for God. No one has any reason to believe that the future will resemble the past.

A theist does have a rational reason to believe that the future will resemble the past. The Biblical creationist expects there to be order in the universe because God made all things (Gen. 1:1; John 1:3) and has imposed order on the universe. God upholds all things by His power (Heb. 1:3). The creationist can believe that the laws of nature will not arbitrarily change. God has told us that there are certain things we can count on to be true in the future (Gen. 8:22; Jer. 33:20-21. Now I'm not asking you to accept my Foundation for believing these things, but my belief is not simply arbitrary. An atheist uses logic, reasons, does scientific experiments expecting that the universe will be law-like and will not change, but in doing so, he is borrowing from the theist's worldview.

How does God know the future will resemble the past?

Because He created all that exists (including you and me) and He is upholding everything by the world of His power (Heb. 1:3).

Prove it. Why can't I say that numbers exist but God does not?

You can. God gave you the free will to accept or reject Him. But without Him, you have to explain how lifeless chemicals can give you life. You have to explain how reasonless chemicals can give you reason. And so on.

I don't know what absolute means, but the laws of logic are necessary.

Why the hesitancy to answer and say that laws of logic are absolute? Is it because you would then have to justify logic apart from circular reasoning? To justify logic aprat from circular reasoning, you must seek a foundation for logic outside of logic itself?

Long ago atheists have conceded the morality issue and now argue that there is no such thing as ABSOLUTE morality.[/QUOTE]

The debate is not whether morality is absolute but whether moral facts exist if there are no minds. Atheists fall on both sides of that question.

Truth is noncontradictory and can't include falsehood. Likewise, morality is noncontradictory. Some action can't be both moral and immoral at the same time in the same way or in the same place. Murder of the innocent was always immoral. It is immoral today. And it will be so in the future. Murder was wrong before any being was ever created. The moral laws are description of God.

Atheists avoid absolutes gecause without God there can be none.

Tom

 

[TeeJay]

=The Barbarian;2726115]Tom, I've been familiar all my life with your kind of alteration to Christian faith. I put my faith in God, not men's adjustments to it.

You lost your faith, because you thought you couldn't live up to God's rules. But you can. You don't need a new set of rules, you need to accept God's.



This is why it's so unlikely that you were really a Catholic. If you honestly believe that's what Catholics do, you were never a Catholic.



Tom, do you think I haven't heard that kind of silliness before? There are guys who make a living thinking up "more bad stuff about Catholics."



Of course it is. From where do you think the grace for that comes?



I could never do it without Christ, as the Catholic Church teaches.

There are two possibilities Tom. Either you were never a Catholic, and you were gulled into believing all of that as the teachings of the Church, or you're hoping I am not a very good Catholic, and don't know that you're telling me all these fables.



Then why not just accept the rest of His word?



Yes. If you will it to turn your back on God, He will allow you to do so at any time. You are free, and will remain so.



Even the Pope can't do that, Tom. Only I can withhold salvation from me.



There are those in certain Protestant sects thing that they can "withhold salvation" from others, but they are merely shutting God out from their lives.



You are not Jesus, Tom. You are just Tom.



Here, in the Gospel of Matthew 25, He tells you:

31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.


You can accept it, and be saved, or deny it and lose any hope of spending eternity with Him. Chose wisely, Tom.



Read His words and decide for yourself. If you do His will you won't have to keep your fingers crossed, will you? Trust him, not the word of men. If you dig your heels in and believe what other men have taught you, the consequences are dire beyond measure.

Barbarian, if you don't know your saved, you are not saved. I'll offer your parachute to another passenger.

Tom

 

[TeeJay]

=Tyrathca;2725907]Nice dodge so let me repeat.

IS COMPUTATION OR ARITHMETIC PHYSICAL OR NOT?

Not physical.

How do you know a computer doesn't "know" it exists?False, I some several social species do have a sense of "justice" of a sort. Particularly in chimps (which have obvious similarities with us)

How do I know a computer doesn't "know" it exists? Are you serious? Please post back that you were just joshing.

Chimps will eat your kids and take a nap afterwards.

Tom

 

[Squishes]

Squishes,

Was it a link? As I recall, you said, "Google category error." I did not google, but I got a dusty logic book down from by bookshelf and refreshed my understanding of logical fallacies of category error. Now I'm not an expert on logic and I did not go to college. Apparently you must be more schooled on laws of logic than I. I must be missing something?

I originally posted, "We know that A equals C because we have already proved they are both equal to B. Chemicals and molecules will not tell us this is true."

You responded, "Of course not. Chemicals cause things but don't justify things." To which I would agree wholeheartedly. That's my argument. You as an atheist argue that reasoning is simply the motion of chemicals in the brain. If that is true, then you yourself agreed that chemicals do not justify.

Now, laws of logic can't be violated. Barbarian is guilty of the fallacy of reification when he attributes a concrete or personal characteristic to a conceptional abstraction, i.e. "science tells us this or science does that rather than scientists tells us things. It doesn't seem to bother him.

But I believe the laws of logic are immaterial, invariant, and universal. They can't be violated. If you can show me that I violated a law of logic, then I will be quick to repent and withdraw my post. Promise!

I'm not arguing that I did not. Perhaps I did?

A category error occurs when the language is used in mistaken way that gives impossible properties to some thing. In your case, you apparently expect an atheist to suppose that justification-- an epistemic relation between a person and some property-- cannot be attributed to the elements of chemistry. And, of course, you're correct. But that is not applying the function of the word "justification" properly, since it is an epistemological concept and not an ontological one. It's as if you said "Is it moral to bananas?"

Atheists can be justified in their beliefs the same way anyone is; by having a belief that was formed the proper way (by tracking the environment, say) that is also true.

But an atheist can't justify abstract objects within his worldview. These things make no sense in an atheist universe. If humans are just the accidental result of chemistry working over time, why would they be deserving of respect? Would we hold a funeral service for few pounds of baking soda that were destroyed reacting to vinegar?

Because natural selection weeded out the members of the population that didn't care about their offspring. But that is a separate question from your complaint that an atheist shouldn't be able to believe in abstract objects. Again, what is the contradiction between these two beliefs:

"God does not exist"
"Prime numbers exist"

Those seem to be perfectly compatible.

Abstract qualities like justice, liberty, dignity, respect presuppose the Biblical worldview. According to Genesis, God made man in His own image (Gen. 1:26-27). As image bearers of God, humans are deserving of a certain level of respect and dignity. God gave Adam the power of choice (Gen. 2:16-17) and held him responsible for his actions (Gen. 3:17-19).

You are using the word "presuppose" incorrectly. Just because the Bible tells a story about why we should be friendly to our neighbor does not mean that if we think we should be friendly to our neighbor Christianity must be true. Can you spot the logical fallacy here?

If Christianity is true, then humans are deserving of respect and dignity.
But humans are deserving of respect and dignity.
Thus, Christianity is true.

This is an invalid argument.

Athesits can believe in these abstract qualities, but in doing so they are forced to step out of their atheist worldview into the theist worldview and affirm theism true and atheism false.

Why? You still haven't told me how abstract entities are incompatible with atheism.

A theist does have a rational reason to believe that the future will resemble the past. The Biblical creationist expects there to be order in the universe because God made all things (Gen. 1:1; John 1:3) and has imposed order on the universe. God upholds all things by His power (Heb. 1:3). The creationist can believe that the laws of nature will not arbitrarily change. God has told us that there are certain things we can count on to be true in the future (Gen. 8:22; Jer. 33:20-21. Now I'm not asking you to accept my Foundation for believing these things, but my belief is not simply arbitrary. An atheist uses logic, reasons, does scientific experiments expecting that the universe will be law-like and will not change, but in doing so, he is borrowing from the theist's worldview.

And how does God know he created blue water and not bleen water?

You can. God gave you the free will to accept or reject Him. But without Him, you have to explain how lifeless chemicals can give you life. You have to explain how reasonless chemicals can give you reason. And so on.

Actually, I don't have to explain those things. It's possible that those are going to be forever outside of our reach. But that does not mean Christianity wins by default.

Why the hesitancy to answer and say that laws of logic are absolute? Is it because you would then have to justify logic apart from circular reasoning? To justify logic aprat from circular reasoning, you must seek a foundation for logic outside of logic itself?

Logic doesn't have a foundation; it is the foundation. And I didn't call them absolute because I don't know what you mean by that. The laws of logic are necessary-- true in every possible world.

Long ago atheists have conceded the morality issue and now argue that there is no such thing as ABSOLUTE morality.

Some atheists do, but far from all do. The most famous ethicist/philosopher and possibly atheist of the last 50 years is an ardent realist about morality.

Atheists avoid absolutes gecause without God there can be none.

Why can't there be necessary truths without God? Why would 1+1=2 be false if God does not exist?

 

[Jukia]

Why can't there be necessary truths without God? Why would 1+1=2 be false if God does not exist?

How does the simple arithmetic have anything to do with any deity? The symbols are man-made to express a concept that exists. What am I missing? One can use the same argument about language---man-made systems of symbols to describe a concept.

 

[Granite]

Barbarian, if you don't know your saved, you are not saved. I'll offer your parachute to another passenger.

Tom

How noble. Pat yourself on the back, Tom, you've earned it.

 

[TeeJay]

Barbarian, You posted that the Bible doesn't say there was a worldwide flood. Peter not only disagrees with you, he prophied of you.

"Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of REMINDER), that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that SCOFFERS will come in the last days walking according to their own lusts, and saying, 'Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.' For this they WILLFULLY FORGET that by the word of God the heavens were of old and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which THE WORLD THAT THEN EXISTED PERISHED, BEING FLOODED WITH WATER" (2 Pet. 3:1-6).

I guess Peter must have fallen asleep when Jesus "opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures" (Luke. 24:45). Poor Peter. He had no idea that he was not to interpret Genesis and the prophets in a literal historical way. If only Barbarian had been there to correct him.

Tom

 

[TeeJay]

=Jukia;2726682]How does the simple arithmetic have anything to do with any deity? The symbols are man-made to express a concept that exists. What am I missing? One can use the same argument about language---man-made systems of symbols to describe a concept.

Jukia,

Contrary to atheist belief, there is no scientific or historical evidence that language evolved.

Tom

 

[TeeJay]

=Granite;2726781]How noble. Pat yourself on the back, Tom, you've earned it.

Granite,

Actually I would rather wait and have Jesus Christ give me a crown at the awards banquet in heaven that Paul prophesied of. Oh! You may not know it, but I may be your judge at the Great White Throne Judgment. Judgment of the wicked will be delegated to believers in the Body of Christ. "My eye will not show mercy." I may be able to hand you one last glass of wine before I send you off to be where you want to be--apart from your Creator God.

Tom

 

[Squishes]

Jukia,

Contrary to atheist belief, there is no scientific or historical evidence that language evolved.

Tom

http://www.cog.brown.edu/people/lie...The evolution of human speech, Its anatom.pdf

 

[Granite]

Granite,

Actually I would rather wait and have Jesus Christ give me a crown at the awards banquet in heaven that Paul prophesied of. Oh! You may not know it, but I may be your judge at the Great White Throne Judgment. Judgment of the wicked will be delegated to believers in the Body of Christ. "My eye will not show mercy." I may be able to hand you one last glass of wine before I send you off to be where you want to be--apart from your Creator God.

Tom

I have yet to encounter anyone on TOL as full of themselves as you are. Nice going, you holier-than-thou pot of helium.

Do you really have to spin these fantasies to make yourself feel better?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian, if you don't know your saved, you are not saved.

You still don't get it. You can throw your salvation away.

I'll offer your parachute to another passenger.

It's not yours to give or take. You need to realize you aren't God.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian, You posted that the Bible doesn't say there was a worldwide flood.

Right. In fact, the word you translate as "entire world" is used in scripture for the land occupied by the Israelites. So unless you want to tell us that the Israelites occupied the entire world...

Peter not only disagrees with you,

Nope. You've been misled about that, too. Let's take a look at your argument:

"Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of REMINDER), that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that SCOFFERS will come in the last days walking according to their own lusts, and saying, 'Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.' For this they WILLFULLY FORGET that by the word of God the heavens were of old and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which THE WORLD THAT THEN EXISTED PERISHED, BEING FLOODED WITH WATER" (2 Pet. 3:1-6).


Obviously, it can't mean the whole Earth, because God clearly shows that the whole world did not perish in Genesis. So, if the Earth did not perish (it's still here) then what did Peter mean by that? Genesis says it was humanity that perished. Not all living things died in the flood. So it only had to be where Adam's descendants lived.

Even assuming that the Flood isn't an allegory (which it might very well be), it won't work for you. I'd be open to your argument that if Peter cites an allegory, that makes it a literal history. Tell me how that works.

I guess Peter must have fallen asleep when Jesus "opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures" (Luke. 24:45).

Or maybe he's smarter than you think and had a little better understanding of God and His word than you. I think I know which it is.

 

[Stripe]

I have yet to encounter anyone on TOL as full of themselves as you are. Nice going, you holier-than-thou pot of helium.

:rotfl:

Granite lives in a hall without mirrors. :chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

Right. In fact, the word you translate as "entire world" is used in scripture for the land occupied by the Israelites. So unless you want to tell us that the Israelites occupied the entire world...Nope. You've been misled about that, too. Let's take a look at your argument:"Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of REMINDER), that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that SCOFFERS will come in the last days walking according to their own lusts, and saying, 'Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.' For this they WILLFULLY FORGET that by the word of God the heavens were of old and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which THE WORLD THAT THEN EXISTED PERISHED, BEING FLOODED WITH WATER" (2 Pet. 3:1-6).[/COLOR]Obviously, it can't mean the whole Earth, because God clearly shows that the whole world did not perish in Genesis. So, if the Earth did not perish (it's still here) then what did Peter mean by that? Genesis says it was humanity that perished. Not all living things died in the flood. So it only had to be where Adam's descendants lived.Even assuming that the Flood isn't an allegory (which it might very well be), it won't work for you. I'd be open to your argument that if Peter cites an allegory, that makes it a literal history. Tell me how that works.Or maybe he's smarter than you think and had a little better understanding of God and His word than you. I think I know which it is.

:rotfl: Typical Barbarian. Assert interpretation (forget evidence or reasoning). Take challenge to assertion and insist it be understood under asserted interpretation.

You're a waste of time to discuss anything with. :loser: