Where did life begin? (Merged)

[Orange_Crush]

O LORD, bless this Thy hand grenade that with it Thou mayest blow Thine enemies to tiny bits, in Thy mercy.

Classic and awesome in every way.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You seem intelligent, however this comment is asinine.

eace2: Science eace2:

I defended the argument in the Noah's Ark thread and won't bog down conversation here by rehashing it. I'll just give a brief defense of the statement and leave it with you. :hi:

"Science" as used "against" religion in this argument is actually a reference to "Scientific Materialism", which is a philosophical worldview that states that matter and energy are all that exist in the Universe, there is no such thing as the supernatural, and thus only natural causes may be considered in the process.

It is based on an unproven and unprovable assumption, thus it is a philosophy/worldview and is inherently, by definition, not "scientific" by its own standards.

 

[Orange_Crush]

That literally has nothing to do with my point. I'm expressing zero desire to kill orange train. I'm merely pointing out that he's calling nonbelievers dense (not to mention generalizing everyone who doesn't adopt his beliefs) when I'm pretty sure (and I would love to see you debate this) that the point is to love your neighbor instead of mocking him. I don't see a biblical verse that states, " if they disagree with you, **** them."

I didn't see him mocking you. I saw him making a truth statement as he sees it. I don't see that stating a truth to a person equates to not loving them.

It has everything to do with what you said.

In John 8, Jesus was talking to the Pharisees. He made several very uncomfortable truth claims to them. He said:

John 8:15, 16 -- You judge by human standards, I just correctly.

John 8:23 -- “You are from below. I am from above. You are of this world. I am not of this world. 24 Therefore I told you that you will die in your sins, because if you don’t believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”

8:42 Jesus said, “If God were your Father, you would sincerely love me, for I came from God, and now am here. I haven’t come of my own initiative, but He sent me. 43 Why don’t you understand what I say? It’s because you can’t accept my words. 44 You are of your father, the Devil,* and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and doesn’t stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, because he is a liar, and the father of lies. 45 Because I tell the truth, you don’t believe me. 46 Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever is from God hears God’s words. The reason you don’t hear them is that you aren’t from God.”

So, He told them that they can't know the truth because Satan is their father.

I think train was being fairly gentle with you in comparison.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Oh, well this isn't the Noah's Ark thread... so you kind of did wait 60 pages in THIS thread.

Does the timing invalidate the point?

 

[Septic]

I defended the argument in the Noah's Ark thread and won't bog down conversation here by rehashing it. I'll just give a brief defense of the statement and leave it with you. :hi:

"Science" as used "against" religion in this argument is actually a reference to "Scientific Materialism", which is a philosophical worldview that states that matter and energy are all that exist in the Universe, there is no such thing as the supernatural, and thus only natural causes may be considered in the process.

It is based on an unproven and unprovable assumption, thus it is a philosophy/worldview and is inherently, by definition, not "scientific" by its own standards.

Fair enough. The way you phrased the previous post left a little to the imagination.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Fair enough. The way you phrased the previous post left a little to the imagination.

I understand. My bad. :hi:

 

[DinkinFlicka]

I didn't see him mocking you. I saw him making a truth statement as he sees it. I don't see that stating a truth to a person equates to not loving them.

It has everything to do with what you said.

In John 8, Jesus was talking to the Pharisees. He made several very uncomfortable truth claims to them. He said:

John 8:15, 16 -- You judge by human standards, I just correctly.

John 8:23 -- “You are from below. I am from above. You are of this world. I am not of this world. 24 Therefore I told you that you will die in your sins, because if you don’t believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”

8:42 Jesus said, “If God were your Father, you would sincerely love me, for I came from God, and now am here. I haven’t come of my own initiative, but He sent me. 43 Why don’t you understand what I say? It’s because you can’t accept my words. 44 You are of your father, the Devil,* and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and doesn’t stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, because he is a liar, and the father of lies. 45 Because I tell the truth, you don’t believe me. 46 Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever is from God hears God’s words. The reason you don’t hear them is that you aren’t from God.”

So, He told them that they can't know the truth because Satan is their father.

I think train was being fairly gentle with you in comparison.

Fairly gentle or no, he's a piss poor ambassador for Christ's teachings. Regardless of what you think, sweeping generalizations (such as "typical non believer") are anything but Christlike.

You're dancing on and off the line of objectivity here.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Does the timing invalidate the point?

That my original terminology wasn't 100% precise and that you chose to single mine out (despite many others making the same mistake in this thread)?

Sure. I'll give that to you if you really want it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Fairly gentle or no, he's a piss poor ambassador for Christ's teachings. Regardless of what you think, sweeping generalizations (such as "typical non believer") are anything but Christlike.

You're dancing on and off the line of objectivity here.

He was right. Perhaps he could have phrased it differently. Perhaps his intent didn't come through in a quick post in an internet message board. I'm not sure. I won't attribute motive. But strictly speaking, from a Biblical perspective, what he said was 100% correctly. It is typical that unbelievers will not understand.

2 Corinthians 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

I'm glad God did it that way. If He had made it about intellectualism, a lot of kids and mentally slow people would have missed out.

However, I agree. Christians are to be humble in their presentation of the truth, for who are we but foolishness and weakness weakness that God chooses to use? And the only difference between me and you is that I have accepted grace and you have not.

The section of 1 Corinthians immediately following that above, that I just quoted, reads:

For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards,3 not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being 4 might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him 5 you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

I am a foolish, weak sinful man that God chose to save and chooses to use. If anyone boasts, let them boast in Him, and for His glory.

:hi:

 

[Orange_Crush]

That my original terminology wasn't 100% precise and that you chose to single mine out (despite many others making the same mistake in this thread)?

Sure. I'll give that to you if you really want it.

I didn't really want or need it. I happened to notice it. I pointed it out. I wasn't trying to single you out. It's not like I noticed it earlier in the thread and just waited for you to post. I'm not sure how I've offended, except that it happened to be you that I disagreed with.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Lol yeah. I used to work with a guy in the AF like that. He thought OJ and Michael Jackson were innocent, integration was done to limit the power of black businesses, aids was invented to limit the gay and black populations (if we really wanted to do that, an STD would be the dumbest option ever. If you want to eliminate a race, do it before they have a chance to bred).

I also think a lot of black Muslim groups like the panthers believe that whites were made in a lab.

Wow. I just read up on Nation of Islam..they are just as nuts as Scientologists and Heaven's Gate.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Wow. I just read up on Nation of Islam..they are just as nuts as Scientologists and Heaven's Gate.

:unsure: Just as nuts? Probably a whole lot nutter than those two I would think.

 

[Obsessed]

And eating paint chips makes you full on retard

 

[Orange_Crush]

(such as "typical non believer") are anything but Christlike.

You're dancing on and off the line of objectivity here.

How is sweeping generalizations not Christ-like?

Everyone who refuses to believe in me will die in their sins. That is a sweeping generalization that Christ made.

If you don't believe me, Satan is your father. That is a sweeping generalization.

Anyone who believes in me can have eternal life. That is sweeping generalization made by Jesus.

The meek will inherit the earth.

The unbelieving world will persecute you for my sake.

The list could go on.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Back to the original topic..some people believe Non Zombie Jesus made the world while some believe everything was just a fluke and we are the result of retarded frog fish squirrels having butt sex with a monkey. There could be a force or entity of sorts that is not god like as people on earth view gods to be that could have put everything into motion. Hell we could be in some creatures snow globe sitting on his desk.

If you go with Big Bang theory (which I believe) I wonder though where is the center of the universe? We know it is expanding...so where is the center? Maybe thats where zombie jesus is?

 

[Roustabout]

That literally has nothing to do with my point. I'm expressing zero desire to kill orange train. I'm merely pointing out that he's calling nonbelievers dense (not to mention generalizing everyone who doesn't adopt his beliefs) when I'm pretty sure (and I would love to see you debate this) that the point is to love your neighbor instead of mocking him. I don't see a biblical verse that states, " if they disagree with you, **** them."

Actually...., "And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them." Luke 9:5
And, "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." (Matt. 7:6)

But I agree, ad-hominems, poisoning the well, etc. are wrong when applied from either side.

 

[Roustabout]

Back to the original topic..some people believe Non Zombie Jesus made the world while some believe everything was just a fluke and we are the result of retarded frog fish squirrels having butt sex with a monkey. There could be a force or entity of sorts that is not god like as people on earth view gods to be that could have put everything into motion. Hell we could be in some creatures snow globe sitting on his desk.

If you go with Big Bang theory (which I believe) I wonder though where is the center of the universe? We know it is expanding...so where is the center? Maybe thats where zombie jesus is?

That only moves the problem back further. What went "bang?" Where did it go "bang?" When did it go "bang?"
Einstein himself spent years trying to deny where this pointed, only later in life confessing that it pointed towards a transcendent, immaterial, intelligent force.

People ask all the time, if you believe in God, then why not Zues, or Mithra, etc.? But it's quite simple when you approach it from natural theology. None of those religions present a creator who possesses the attributes necessary. We can eliminate all but three religions by simple logic and reason.

 

[GoBigOrangeUT]

And eating paint chips makes you full on retard

I am a lead-free paint chip eater, thank you.

 

[FLVOL69]

I am a lead-free paint chip eater, thank you.

We know...

 

[Orange_Crush]

That only moves the problem back further. What went "bang?" Where did it go "bang?" When did it go "bang?"
Einstein himself spent years trying to deny where this pointed, only later in life confessing that it pointed towards a transcendent, immaterial, intelligent force.

People ask all the time, if you believe in God, then why not Zues, or Mithra, etc.? But it's quite simple when you approach it from natural theology. None of those religions present a creator who possesses the attributes necessary. We can eliminate all but three religions by simple logic and reason.

I've proposed that you can eliminate two of those logically also. It has to do with the claim that God is both perfectly gracious/merciful and perfectly just. The only way that God can be perfect in all of those attributes would be through a perfect mediator on which sin could be judged.

:hi:

 

[Roustabout]

I've proposed that you can eliminate two of those logically also. It has to do with the claim that God is both perfectly gracious/merciful and perfectly just. The only way that God can be perfect in all of those attributes would be through a perfect mediator on which sin could be judged.

:hi:

I totally agree, but baby steps.

 

[GoBigOrangeUT]

That only moves the problem back further. What went "bang?" Where did it go "bang?" When did it go "bang?"
Einstein himself spent years trying to deny where this pointed, only later in life confessing that it pointed towards a transcendent, immaterial, intelligent force.

People ask all the time, if you believe in God, then why not Zues, or Mithra, etc.? But it's quite simple when you approach it from natural theology. None of those religions present a creator who possesses the attributes necessary. We can eliminate all but three religions by simple logic and reason.

You used logic to deduce that Christianity is the only correct religion? What kind of warped logic do you use? If you want to say that it is illogical to believe everything came from nothing with a bang, that's fine. But you cannot then say it is logical to think that a sky being created everything.

 

[Roustabout]

You used logic to deduce that Christianity is the only correct religion? What kind of warped logic do you use? If you want to say that it is illogical to believe everything came from nothing with a bang, that's fine. But you cannot then say it is logical to think that a sky being created everything.

You really believe this deserves a response? It's nothing but a question begging fallacy, wrapped in a strawman fallacy, which are both LOGICAL fallacies BTW. Bravo.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You really believe this deserves a response? It's nothing but a question begging fallacy, wrapped in a strawman fallacy, which are both LOGICAL fallacies BTW. Bravo.

It's by far the most common response. Somehow, I perceive you know this all too well. lol

 

[Roustabout]

It's by far the most common response. Somehow, I perceive you know this all too well. lol

Oh yes. It always seems comical too me for someone to criticize the "use" of logic, when they can't even account for it. Where does logic exist? How does it exist? It's a metaphysical elephant standing in the corner.

I tried to frame the original question in a way that would stimulate an intellectual conversation.
What went bang? Deals with matter.
Where did it go bang? Deals space.
When did it go bang? Deal with time.

We see how that worked out.

Space, time, matter. Einstein addressed all of these in his theory of relativity.
This begs the question, what are people talking about when they say, "nothing?" ) (Ex Nihilo) Hawking actually proposes (philosophically mind you) that the universe came from NOTHING. Hawking gave credence to Einstein's statement that, "the man of science is a poor philosopher."

Edit: Crush (and anyone else who wants to take an honest look) here is an article that addresses a lot of what I'm referencing here. Feser (pronounced Fazer) is one of the best philosophical minds of our time.
Edward Feser: Why are (some) physicists so bad at philosophy?