Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Evolution of God (Before Genesis 1:1)
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4475 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 61 of 73 (445718)
01-03-2008 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by jar
01-03-2008 1:59 PM


Re: Great winds.
Jar,
quote:
Great winds do small flames blow out, unless it is great winds caused by too many baked beans in which case small flames can create great fire balls when encountering said winds.
If we are on the same page, I heard that scientists are tapping on this as alternative form of ENERGY that could be used to cook food. :=) :=). How do you guys paste an emoticon on this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 01-03-2008 1:59 PM jar has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 62 of 73 (445725)
01-03-2008 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by NOT JULIUS
01-03-2008 2:25 PM


Great J writes:
A rushing mighty wind that filled the house, and no movement at all.
For @#$% sake, not another @#$%ing @#$hole who doesn't know what a simile is.
Here's the quote again:
quote:
Act 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
There was a SOUND. It was AS OF a rushing mightly wind. It was like the sound of the tornado in The Wizard of Oz - the SOUND of a wind, not an actual wind in your house when you watch the movie.
Similarly, there were cloven tongues like fire:
quote:
Act 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
Notice the similarity to the burning bush?
quote:
Exo 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
Exo 3:3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.
Exo 3:4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.
The Holy Spirit is described as being like wind and like fire because those were mysterious forces to the ancient Hebrews. The Holy Spirit is supposed to be mysterious. If we understand wind and fire better today, that's all the more reason to not think of the Holy Spirit in those terms.
I am really not going to get into elementary school English with you. For @#$% sake, learn what a figure of speech is.
And, that somebody's opinion by the way, is just from the masters of their own field--the bible scholars/ translators.
Well, no it isn't. It's the opinion of one translator. Since it's only a footnote and not in the text itself, apparently even that one translator understood that the word shouldn't be translated that way.
The Bible writers, by the way, did not study physics. They observed that in their physical world if something moves it must have been caused by Power.
And they attributed those movements to supernatural powers, not observable energies.
I thought man has free will, the right to say yes or no.
You really have no clue about the speaking-in-tongues phenomenon, do you? The standard thinking, as I understand it, is that a person has to be willing before the Holy Spirit will speak through him/her. They have already said yes to being used as a puppet.
And, I really thought that man's intelligence is different from an ass.
The Balaam story illustrates how your thinking is wrong. God spoke through the ass the same way He spoke through the disciples. That should indicate to you that intelligence isn't the issue.
Did you seriously think that the Holy Spirit taught the disciples to speak those languages? Where do you see that in the text?
If you don't agree, then we'll never be on the same page.
The trouble is that you're not reading the page at all. You haven't looked above the footnotes. When you read the Bible, you have to look at the actual text, not just sneak a peek at the answers in the back of the book.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by NOT JULIUS, posted 01-03-2008 2:25 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by NOT JULIUS, posted 01-03-2008 6:00 PM ringo has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4475 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 63 of 73 (445743)
01-03-2008 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by ringo
01-03-2008 4:04 PM


Ringo,
quote:
For @#$% sake, not another @#$%ing @#$hole who doesn't know what a simile is.
I understand this is an impassionate debate. And according to the rules you should provide "distance" between your emotion and your position. Since you violated the rules, you lost. Agree? Can you still keep your cool?
Was the writer of Acts 2:1-3 writing a literary piece or was he writing an actual and factual observation? Are figures of speech--simile, metaphor, personification,etc.--USUALLY used in reporting an actual incident, or are these usually used in literary pieces like prose or poetry?
quote:
There was a SOUND. It was AS OF a rushing mightly wind. It was like the sound of the tornado in The Wizard of Oz - the SOUND of a wind, not an actual wind in your house when you watch the movie.
Granting without admiting that your interpretation is correct. Let me re-state it if I understood it clearly. In effect you are saying that there was a SOUND. How was the SOUND described by the writer? Like a rushing mighty wind. Is my understanding correct?
You quoted another scripture:
quote:
Exo 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
How do you understand this? a) Did the angel of the LORD appear like FIRE? OR b) the angel appeared to Moses in a bush that was burning with FIRE but was not being consumed? Either way, is fire in everyday language not a form of ENERGY, or is it?
You said:
quote:
The Holy Spirit is described as being like wind and like fire because those were mysterious forces to the ancient Hebrews. The Holy Spirit is supposed to be mysterious. If we understand wind and fire better today, that's all the more reason to not think of the Holy Spirit in those terms.
Is it your understanding that to the ancient Hebrews "wind" is not capable of moving things, and that "fire" is not capable of cooking? Or is it your understanding that: 'yes the ancient Hebrews knew that wind can cause motion to certain objects, and yes, fire can cook. But--the big but, perhaps--they couldn't explain yet fully why these forms of energy act the way ( or produce certain results) the way they do?
You said:
quote:
You really have no clue about the speaking-in-tongues phenomenon, do you? The standard thinking, as I understand it, is that a person has to be willing before the Holy Spirit will speak through him/her. They have already said yes to being used as a puppet.
Again, clue or no clue is of no moment. What is important is what the scriptures say, and what is reasonable. Have you considered the possibility that for a person to be willing ( to give his consent) he has to use his intelligence? After all, those disciples could have said no. For God to use his power ( the holy spirit) to make puppet of persons, is this not a violation of his respect for their free will? Have you considered that?
You said:
quote:
The trouble is that you're not reading the page at all. You haven't looked above the footnotes. When you read the Bible, you have to look at the actual text, not just sneak a peek at the answers in the back of the book.
I read the page, I just don't understand it the way you WANT me to understand it. But, have you looked at your thesaurus? Is not the word "Power" synonymous to "force" or "energy"?
Edited by Great J, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by ringo, posted 01-03-2008 4:04 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by ringo, posted 01-03-2008 6:33 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 64 of 73 (445745)
01-03-2008 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by NOT JULIUS
01-03-2008 6:00 PM


Great J writes:
Are figures of speech--simile, metaphor, personification,etc.--USUALLY used in reporting an actual incident, or are these usually used in literary pieces like prose or poetry?
The fact is that it is a simile. Do you know of a single translation that doesn't translate it as a simile?
In effect you are saying that there was a SOUND. How was the SOUND described by the writer? Like a rushing mighty wind. Is my understanding correct?
That much is blindingly obvious. The table lamp understands that much. The potted plant in the corner understands that much.
a) Did the angel of the LORD appear like FIRE? OR b) the angel appeared to Moses in a bush that was burning with FIRE but was not being consumed?
It was obviously like fire only in the sense that it looked like fire. It was not fire because it didn't behave like fire - it didn't consume fuel.
Either way, is fire in everyday language not a form of ENERGY, or is it?
We're not talking about everyday language. We're talking about the language in the Bible, which is obviously a figure of speech.
Is it your understanding that to the ancient Hebrews "wind" is not capable of moving things, and that "fire" is not capable of cooking?
Again, we're not talking about the everyday use of the words. We're talking about how they were used in the Bible. The wind in Acts didn't move anything and the fire didn't cook the disciples. The fire that Moses saw didn't cook the bush.
There is no mention of energy transfer of any kind in either story. That ought to be your first clue that the writers were not talking about any earthly energy.
Have you considered the possibility that for a person to be willing ( to give his consent) he has to use his intelligence?
Of course I've considered that. Why do you think I brought up the story of Balaam's ass? The phenomenon was the same, but you can't attribute the same intelligence to the ass. Therefore, intelligence is not a factor.
For God to use his power ( the holy spirit) to make puppet of persons, is this not a violation of his respect for their free will?
Already answered. No. Not if they are willing to temporarily surrender their will to Him.
Have you considered that?
Of course I have. This isn't something I'm making up as I go along. It's the belief of people who believe in tongues. Please do some research on the subject and stop asking off-topic questions about it.
I read the page, I just don't understand it the way you WANT me to understand it.
I don't give a flying @#$% how you understand it or if you understand it. I'm just hoping there's nobody out there dumber than a potted plant who can't see a simile staring him in the face and thinks there's something to what you're saying.
Is not the word "Power" synonymous to "force" or "energy"?
Not in every case. Not in this one.
Since you violated the rules, you lost. Agree?
When I break the rules, you'll see a little "suspended" notice by my name.
(That too is a figure of speech.)

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by NOT JULIUS, posted 01-03-2008 6:00 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by NOT JULIUS, posted 01-03-2008 7:46 PM ringo has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4475 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 65 of 73 (445756)
01-03-2008 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by ringo
01-03-2008 6:33 PM


quote:
The fact is that it is a simile.
That is your assertion.
quote:
Do you know of a single translation that doesn't translate it as a simile?
I think most bible translators would want to literally translate the bible to capture the original text.
quote:
In effect you are saying that there was a SOUND. How was the SOUND described by the writer? Like a rushing mighty wind. Is my understanding correct?
You answered: "That much is blindingly obvious. The table lamp understands that much. The potted plant in the corner understands that much."
You just prove my point. Whether it was wind or sound doesn't matter anymore. Sound is energy. Wind is energy. And, remember my thesis: spirit=power=energy.
quote:
It was obviously like fire only in the sense that it looked like fire. It was not fire because it didn't behave like fire - it didn't consume fuel.
Kindly read again that account. And let me refresh your understanding. That acccount says that Moses saw a bush that was being burned by fire. However, when he took a closer look, why the bush wasn't burning at all! )
Is this how you also understood that passage?
quote:
Again, we're not talking about the everyday use of the words. We're talking about how they were used in the Bible. The wind in Acts didn't move anything and the fire didn't cook the disciples. The fire that Moses saw didn't cook the bush.
I seem to have a problem understanding your answer. Let me rephrase and see which one captures your thoughts. (1) Is it your understanding that there is ALWAYS a conflict between how words are used by bible writers, and how we understand these words today (2) There is no conflict at all, (3) There are some conflicts like the case in point--the words "fire" and "wind". If 3 is your choice, how would their and our understanding differ?
quote:
Of course I've considered that. Why do you think I brought up the story of Balaam's ass? The phenomenon was the same, but you can't attribute the same intelligence to the ass. Therefore, intelligence is not a factor.
Good for you to have considered that. The disciples gave their consent--which means they used their intelligence-- to be used as spokesperson of God. The ass obviously did not. How is it that you are saying that intelligence was not a factor?
quote:
For God to use his power ( the holy spirit) to make puppet of persons, is this not a violation of his respect for their free will? have you considered that ?
your answer:
quote:
Of course I have. This isn't something I'm making up as I go along. It's the belief of people who believe in tongues. Please do some research on the subject and stop asking off-topic questions about it.
I did not say that you were making things up. Have I? Again, the belief of people who believe in tongues doesn't matter. It is what was written that matters.
quote:
I don't give a flying @#$% how you understand it or if you understand it. When I break the rules, you'll see a little "suspended" notice by my name.
Can't we have a little respect for the rules, please?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ringo, posted 01-03-2008 6:33 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by ringo, posted 01-03-2008 8:02 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 66 of 73 (445758)
01-03-2008 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by NOT JULIUS
01-03-2008 7:46 PM


Great J writes:
quote:
The fact is that it is a simile.
That is your assertion.
No. That's the way the translators translated it. They considered it a simile. Argue with them.
Whether it was wind or sound doesn't matter anymore. Sound is energy. Wind is energy.
No. Sound is not energy in the minds of the Bible writers. If you think it is, show us examples in the Bible where sound is supposed to have "power".
That acccount says that Moses saw a bush that was being burned by fire. However, when he took a closer look, why the bush wasn't burning at all! )
That's what it says, pretty clearly - that it wasn't real, earthly fire because it didn't consume anything.
(1) Is it your understanding that there is ALWAYS a conflict between how words are used by bible writers, and how we understand these words today (2) There is no conflict at all, (3) There are some conflicts like the case in point--the words "fire" and "wind".
I didn't say anything about "conflict" between what the Bible writers meant and what we understand today. I said that you obviously misunderstand. When they use figures of speech, you want to take them literally.
The disciples gave their consent--which means they used their intelligence-- to be used as spokesperson of God.
No. They gave their consent for God to do whatever He wanted. They didn't use their intelligence, they gave it up, temporarily. They willingly became as unintelligent as an ass - or a burning bush - so that God could speak through them. No intelligence required.
Again, the belief of people who believe in tongues doesn't matter. It is what was written that matters.
And yet you continue to ignore what is written. Why not drop the arrogant attitude and read what other people think?
Can't we have a little respect for the rules, please?
If you have a problem with the rules, there's a whole forum for that.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by NOT JULIUS, posted 01-03-2008 7:46 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by NOT JULIUS, posted 01-03-2008 8:32 PM ringo has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4475 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 67 of 73 (445764)
01-03-2008 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by ringo
01-03-2008 8:02 PM


quote:
No. That's the way the translators translated it. They considered it a simile. Argue with them.
I haven't read a bible translator say that Act 2:1-3 was a simile. However, I've heard a lot of misguided ones say this or that passage is a simile, this or that is literal all to suit their belief. Let the scriptures speak for itself. I will not argue with them, there writings are clear. However, I'll turn around and ask: why don't you argue with the translators of Gen 1:1, BTE, when they wrote that spirit = power?
quote:
No. Sound is not energy in the minds of the Bible writers. If you think it is, show us examples in the Bible where sound is supposed to have "power".
We can't read the minds of the bible writers. However, the way that the event--that powerful strong sound--was described gives honest readers the unmistakable understanding that there was a lot of energy generated in that event. Keep in mind the formula. spirit=power=energy.
quote:
No. They gave their consent for God to do whatever He wanted. They didn't use their intelligence, they gave it up, temporarily. They willingly became as unintelligent as an ass - or a burning bush - so that God could speak through them. No intelligence required.
Again that was your misguided interpretation. The more reasonable one is this: their minds or intelligence were vastly improved by the power of God ( the holy spirit) to speak foreign tongues. To say that the holy spirit just moved their jaws up and down and their tongues to swirl and spit out foreign language is a bit of an idiotic stretch.
Again, even if that was so, to move their jaws up and down, swirl their tongue and spit out foreign language--as in a puppet--required energy. Didn't it? Which goes back to the main point, spirit=power=energy.
quote:
Why not drop the arrogant attitude and read what other people think?
Were you addressing yourself? That, my friend is a figure of speech. Go figure it out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by ringo, posted 01-03-2008 8:02 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by ringo, posted 01-03-2008 8:52 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 68 of 73 (445768)
01-03-2008 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by NOT JULIUS
01-03-2008 8:32 PM


Great J writes:
I haven't read a bible translator say that Act 2:1-3 was a simile.
Yes you have. You've seen where they put in the word "as". That makes it a simile. In case you missed it, here it is again:
quote:
Act 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
Act 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
why don't you argue with the translators of Gen 1:1, BTE, when they wrote that spirit = power?
As I've already said, they didn't write it into the text, only into a footnote. They're quite welcome to write black=white in a footnote if they want. I'm only talking about what's in the text.
However, the way that the event--that powerful strong sound--was described gives honest readers the unmistakable understanding that there was a lot of energy generated in that event.
Well, roll out those "honest readers" then. Show us anybody who agrees with your idea that there was a lot of "energy" generated in the event. I think you'll find that almost everybody agrees there was spiritual power, not physical energy.
Keep in mind the formula. spirit=power=energy.
No. That formula was thrown out long ago. You've been shown six ways from Sunday how it's wrong.
The more reasonable one is this: their minds or intelligence were vastly improved by the power of God ( the holy spirit) to speak foreign tongues.
Again, show us anybody who agrees with you, if it's "more reasonable", as you claim.
I asked you before and you didn't answer: Do you believe the disciples learned those foreign languages on the spot? Do you believe they could still speak those languages hours later, days later, months later? I've seen the speaking-in-tongues phenomenon hundreds of times and I've never once come across a person who knew what they had said or could repeat it later.
Do some research. Ignorance is curable.
To say that the holy spirit just moved their jaws up and down and their tongues to swirl and spit out foreign language is a bit of an idiotic stretch.
Then don't make it. There's nothing in the text about jaws moving or tongues swirling or spitting.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by NOT JULIUS, posted 01-03-2008 8:32 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by NOT JULIUS, posted 01-04-2008 4:08 PM ringo has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4475 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 69 of 73 (445988)
01-04-2008 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by ringo
01-03-2008 8:52 PM


Goodbye Ringo,
I find it fruitless to discuss with a hot head. So I choose not to reply to your points anymore, but to appeal to the reader to consider these.
1. Please study carefully the proposition that God--being NOT made of flesh and blood--is spirit.
2. The Bible says that spirit = power = energy.
3. In my opening post, I proposed two (2) theories to try to understand how God came about. One theory, is that being energy he has no beginning. Another is he EVOLVED--and I likened his evolution to that of a blackhole, only more complicated. "It" EVOLVED into a "HE"--having consciousness, a will of his own, and used His energies ( Power in the language of the bible) to create things. See opening post for more details.
4. I cited certain Biblical passages that proves spirit=power=energy.
Among these are:
Genesis 1:1 where BTE specifically says that spirit = power
Acts 2:1-3 . Which mentions an awesome Sound as in the rush of a mighty wind; or alternatively a mighty wind producing an awesome sound. Whether Sound or Wind doesn't matter. They are proof that spirit--the holy spirit of God--is energy.
Ex 3:2, brought up by Ringo, the account of the burning bush that Moses saw but was not being consumed by fire. Not only did Moses see the phenomena but he heard a voice, a sound from God. Some have explained the phenomena of the burning bush as St. Elmo's fire. But, even so St. Elmos' fire is a form of energy. The sound that Moses (a.k.a Ringo) heard is a form of energy.
There are other phenomenon mentioned in the Bible--the splitting of the Red Sea, the strength given to Samson--that supports my theory (guess, or hypothesis) that spirit = energy. But God's energy (body if you will) is so much more complicated than the "conventional" ones. In the language of the Bible--to which my good friend Ringo probably agree--is that God's spirit [or energy] is mysterious.
Some of you questioned and some may question that being energy then God is measurable. My answer is if you can measure the energy that is in blackholes, then probably we can just Begin to measure the energy of God since he is--as stated in my proposition--more complex than black holes. At present, as I understand it, not all energies are measurable (e.g St.Elmo's fire, the ones inside or within the gravitational pull of black-holes ). But, they can be OBSERVABLE.
And if you happen to agree, what then? Then you will begin to appreciate more fully the complex and sytematic things around us. In my humble opinion, Science should not focus all its resources in PROVING or DISPROVING the existence of God. In my opinion, question like how did life begin, even if answered would be less fruitful than this question: HOW and WHY DID THE CREATOR MAKE THESE THINGS?
I choose not to elaborate more for fearing to encounter another Ringo who does not abide by the rules. I shall propose to Admin to close this topic and deal with my good friend Ringo.
Edited by Great J, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ringo, posted 01-03-2008 8:52 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by jar, posted 01-04-2008 4:17 PM NOT JULIUS has not replied
 Message 71 by ringo, posted 01-04-2008 4:37 PM NOT JULIUS has not replied
 Message 72 by pelican, posted 01-08-2008 3:21 AM NOT JULIUS has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 70 of 73 (445997)
01-04-2008 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by NOT JULIUS
01-04-2008 4:08 PM


In my humble opinion, Science should not focus all its resources in PROVING or DISPROVING the existence of God.
Worry not, Science does not try to prove or disprove God.
In my opinion, question like how did life begin, even if answered would be less fruitful than this question: HOW and WHY DID THE CREATOR MAKE THESE THINGS?
Asked and answered. Godfather Raven did explain it.

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by NOT JULIUS, posted 01-04-2008 4:08 PM NOT JULIUS has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 71 of 73 (446007)
01-04-2008 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by NOT JULIUS
01-04-2008 4:08 PM


Great J writes:
Some have explained the phenomena of the burning bush as St. Elmo's fire. But, even so St. Elmos' fire is a form of energy.
Since the Bible specifically states that the "fire" did not consume the bush, we know it could not have been real earthly fire. There was no change from chemical energy to heat energy. Clearly, there was no earthly energy involved.
In the language of the Bible--to which my good friend Ringo probably agree--is that God's spirit [or energy] is mysterious.
I'm the one who brought up the "mysterious" aspect. The Holy Spirit is supposed to be mysterious - it isn't just a wind or just a fire. It isn't just a guy with power tools. It's something unlike anything we observe and measure on earth. It is clearly not mundane "energy".
In my humble opinion, Science should not focus all its resources in PROVING or DISPROVING the existence of God.
Well, goody goody for you with whipped cream and sprinkles - it doesn't.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by NOT JULIUS, posted 01-04-2008 4:08 PM NOT JULIUS has not replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 72 of 73 (447112)
01-08-2008 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by NOT JULIUS
01-04-2008 4:08 PM


I have made many enqiries along the same lines as you. I relate to the black holes as drawing in the energy, changing into a concentrated form that is so powerful, our imaginations could not comprehend.
I had to drop the biblical god. I do not believe god is a he with human traits, but an energy. An energy that can create itself in many forms. This energy cannot not be itself. It stands alone but encompasses everything. It is forever evolving into different form, not neccesarily for the better. The only energy that fits all the criteria that I can think of is potentiality.
Any thoughts on this?
Edited by Heinrik, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by NOT JULIUS, posted 01-04-2008 4:08 PM NOT JULIUS has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 73 of 73 (465985)
05-12-2008 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NOT JULIUS
12-28-2007 3:57 PM


quote:
1.No Beginning theory. Here is logical statement:
Premise (P1): Energy--e.g electrical, nuclear, etc--has no beginning, these have always existed(according to Science).
But the uni is conclusively 'FINITE', and had a BEGINNING. This makes energy, light, matter, space, time - all post-uni products.
You can see fro your opening stance, why it is impossible to contradict Genesis, which opens with a preamble the uni is finite - it had a beginning.
There is no alternative to Creationism and Monotheism. By subsequence of nothing else on the table. We know that the universe was not infinite 10 seconds ago - its expanded; we know there was a time when none of the stars, galaxies or molecular atoms ever existed.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-28-2007 3:57 PM NOT JULIUS has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024