I'd love for a Creationist to state and defend their time-line

Did I impose that limit? No! The 'Bible' imposed that limit. I know enough to do that because the Holy Spirit instructed me to do that.

 

Using that logic, he's also implying he has an end. Being an eternal spirit, there is no beginning and no end him. That phrase is not used to establish a timeline of God himself, but a way people conceptualize his immensity.

 

But Incorporeal...you don't believe in science, do you?

- - - Updated - - -

How does God occur from nothing?

 

That is something we can't possibly understand.

 

Creationists and many Theists say "You're making the ridiculous claim that the Universe came into existance out of nothing"

Then when asked about God they say "God came into existance out of nothing".

 

Not at all. Personal observation is implicit in ALL interactions, its in part how experimental data is collected.
The fact you are attempting to argue that religious experiences are also empirical data is ridiculous.

Nonsense.
Science is not a religion, period.

YOU ASKED FOR EVIDENCE OF QUARKS AND I PROVIDED IT!

But I'm not surprised you reject the very evidence you asked for, in such a prissy and transparently churlish fashion

amazing. Neither religion nor philosophy are immune to science when discussing some matters. Be it the veracity of scriptures or the nature of human endeavour.

Yes I did and you then hypocritically hid behind "rules".

Of course social sciences do not exclude the study of religion and its effects.

Phyicial sciences do not reject religion in any way shape or form. Its just that religion has NO ROLE in the physical sciences.

Science can be applied to religious dogma, such as the mythological global flood, or Jonah's little sea cruise in the belly of a whale, in order to either support or deny the veracity of such claims.

Not at all. A worthy adversary would not stoop to such petty tactics and deflections.
A worthy adversary would not have such a lame cop out as "you have not compelled my mind".

That can just as easily be interpreted as " you got nothing to come back with" so you pull out the trusty old chestnut and simply declare that any argument ou choose is rendered ineffective because it doesn't oblige or force you to believe.

It is a well worn religious argument dating back hundreds if not thousands of years. It can be seen very clearly today, manifest in the utterly ridiculous creationist museum, which perpetuates total denial of proven scientific facts.

I prefer rather more objective argumentation.

'
WRONG AGAIN!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciao
Originally from the Venetian language, it has entered the vocabulary of English and of many other languages around the world.

 

You have to understand. If Incorporeal believed in quarks....he'd agree with evidence for them. If he doesn't....then no amount of evidence, from hundreds of scientific sources, would EVER convince him otherwise.

He is a solipsist.

 

They are speaking about the physical world first and spiritual second. The laws aren't true for both.

 

Same argument.

Why is the idea of a "self-created Big Bang" "ridiculous"....but a "self-created God" not?

 

Not the same. Discussing how particles interact in the physical world is tangible with science. Discussing a perfect being in the spiritual world is not.

 

Never could figure out how god could be a perfect being when reading the bible.

He had to wipe out all of mankind save for Noah and his family because of their wickedness, but since he is perfect and all knowing, he knew he'd have to wipe out 99.9999% of the human race when he created adam and eve. I don't even want ot get into his orders to the hebrews to wipe out whole tribes.

 

Both are "objects"....in a purely semantical sense.

The Theists/Creationists love to mock the idea of "A Universe creating itself out of nothing" or always existed and simply contracts and expands eternally....

while accepting the idea of a "God" that "created Himself out of nothing" or has always existed.

Let's imagine this....what if "God"...WERE the physical Universe. That every particle, energy wave, etc. even the empty vacuum of space is "God". In that case, a theist who believed in that God would say "He created Himself out of nothing" or "has always existed".

No difference.

BTW, God as a "perfect being" is contradictory to Judeo-Christian descriptions of Him in the Bible. That God is vengeful, wrathful, orders genocide even infanticide..has to kill his own Son (or avatar of himself) to redeem Man by rules He Himself created, but finds impossible to eschew.......and thus is not "perfect".

 

The "God" of the Bible, especially Old Testament....doesn't even fit a BROAD qualification of "perfect".

He's a raging homicidal maniac who kills his "children" (or orders them to kill each other) and blames it all on conditions and rules that He Himself created....but blames them for.

Makes Joan Crawford in "Mommy Dearest" look like June Cleaver.

 

If you were to look at Him as a linear expression, perhaps. Have you ever considered where the beginning and ending of a circle are located, if there are no definite markers? The term 'timeline' in and of itself is potentially restrictive, as it is not qualified as either a straight line or a curved line.

 

Well of course I believe in science. I practice science everyday. How about you? My confidence in some scientists is questionable; and I recognize that science has particular limits. Seemingly you have questions pertaining to science that remain unanswered.

 

Should have been clearer as I was in the other post....you believe in the science...that you already believe in.

If something scientific disagrees with your held beliefs....you reject it. Correct?

 

Upon further research....I think I'll go back to my original assessment of your non-belief in science-

http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...e-like-modern-day-christian-theocracy-10.html

 

Go ahead and rationalize your claim above regarding 'ridiculous'. You will eventually see that all you are offering is your opinion.

Show proof of claim.

No. You provided opinion.

I am not surprised that you have offered nothing but opinion in such a prissy and transparently churlish fashion.

Then science should be able to disprove the existence of God if God (being a part of religion and religion not being immune to science). Where is that scientific PROOF?

You don't like rules?

Finally a true statement.

Then likewise, the physical sciences have NO ROLE in religion.

Surely science has been used to attempt a denial of such events, however, when science is founded upon ASSUMPTIONS, that science is meaningless. ASSUMPTIONS are things that have not been proven to be 'true'.

Perhaps you should have paid more attention to such old adages as "all is fair in love and war" or perhaps you should have studied the 'tactics of warfare'. That so-called 'lame cop out' is effective... as it is both true and has thus far been able to effectively defeat your claims.

Well, if your arguments and evidence have not compelled my mind to accept your assertions as true, then why would I want to tell a lie and say that they have compelled my mind to accept them as true? Would you prefer that this forum be turned over to liars as opposed to finding 'truth'?

Who is perpetuating "total denial of proven scientific facts"? Not me. Like I said, I work in scientific experiments at home everyday,,, and work within the rules established by the scientific method. Of course none of those experiments have anything to do with 'religion'.. just my curiosity about 'how things work'.

I prefer truth.

Well, I am glad you corrected me on the acceptance of the English use of that term.
www.tfd.com/ciao
"ciao (chou)interj. Used to express greeting or farewell.

[HR][/HR][Italian, from dialectal ciau, alteration of Italian (sono vostro) schiavo, (I am your) servant, from Medieval Latin sclavus, slave, servant; see slave.]"

Slaves don't attempt to rebut their masters.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciao
Originally from the Venetian language, it has entered the vocabulary of English and of many other languages around the world.[/QUOTE]

 

So fall back on what I have observed about science. Can you disprove what I have observed about science. If my memory serves me correctly, I recall offering the membership an opportunity to disprove that observation which I pointed out. See the two threads "What is truth" and "what is objective reality"...

 

Incorporeal, you are merely confirming my previous "accusation". You DON'T believe in science. Notice there's not even any nuance in your quote I cited in Post #242.

You're dismissing ALL science as "founded upon assumptions related to "objective reality"; and assumptions are things that have not been proven to be true"

 

Yes they are.

One is the image of the other.
Truth corresponds to Reality, one-to-one.

Truth is sired by Reality as it unfolds, too.
The father of Truth is Reality.

 

Then prove that science is not founded upon assumptions.

 

Science:
"Fire burns."
Put your hand into the fire.
Does it burn?

Is science correct according to the proposed reaction of your own senses?

 

And you aren't?

None needed.

There are not gods in science.
Science does not acknowledge the supernatural nor spiritual.

Wrong I provided links to scientific evidence of quarks. Not my opinion. But feel free to come up with as many excuses as possible to not acknowledge that fact.

.

Seems evidence is opinion in your world. For a guy who depends so heavily on semantics its a wonder you cannot graps the defintion of religion and the definition of science.

But thanks yet another demonstration of churlishness. Prissy is your retreat into citing rules.

Seems you have a bit of a comphrehension problem. Are you aware of the definition of "some"?

Science does not engage in the supernatural.

I don't like transparent attempts at deflection by misinterpreting rules.

Only to the extent that when one attempts to declare that dogma and associated scriptures are the literal truth. Other than that, no it idoesn't have much of a place in religion. Naturally evidence is not a area of strength for religion so I can see how many proponents merely insist that it isn't compelling, thereby preserving their opinions.

Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe. your command of semantics seems to be degrading over time.
And I think you are probably correct in despising logic, because you don't appear to have much command of the subject.

So you admit that your defense is not necessarily true nor appropriate but can be excused because of an old adage with regard to war?
What you call defeat is nothing more than rejection.

If you measure defeat by how compelled your mind is, then you can never be "defeated" (in the sense of admission or acceptance) merely derided.

You just mentioned you have no compunction about lying. "all's fair" and all.
Weasely cop outs can stand alone without any necessity for substantiation, nor discussion for that matter.

Like I said you revert to this cop out whenever you have nothing more to offer or can't counter a particular argument. The empirical evidence of this is littered throughout your 21,000 plus posts.
.

Yes you do deny scientic fact. Rather regularly. I freely admit that facts and evidence can't/don't/won't compell your mind to believe.

You conduct science experiments every day at home?
You do realize that turning a light switch on and off, is not a experiment in the nature of electricity.

Emprical evidence also indicates that this "preference" of yours doesn't stop you from rejecting it at times.

I'll repeat it for you since you seem to be a tad slow on the uptake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciao
Originally from the Venetian language, it has entered the vocabulary of English and of many other languages around the world.

If you wish to discuss etymology, fine, but that does not in any way alter the FACT that ciao is part of the english lexicon (amongst others)
there are literally thousands of foreign words in our lexicon. I bet you are suprised.

Now that is a witless, arrogant, and wholely inappropriate inference.

 

Define "burn". No! Fire does not burn. Here is some fire: http://www.camelcitydispatch.com/kernersville-pd-and-fire-marshals-office-looking-for-arsonist/ see the image: did that burn? The word "fire" is just a symbol. If you are talking about the rapid oxidation of a substance due to the mixture of a fuel and oxygen, then does 'rust' burn?