PeterJ Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 ... The thing is we do not have an alternative to an indefinable and un-knowable source factor. Here, true creationism is not incorret, namely the source factor has to be a superior mind and power, else the notion of creating a universe becomes implausible. Until a sound alternative is at hand, there is no alternative to creationism. Well, we do have such an alternative, but it would be heretical in theism and physics so it tends to be overlooked. It would not be a superior mind and it would not create anything except in the sense that fire creates smoke. So we do have a choice, a traditional choice in fact.
iNow Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 Here, true creationism is not incorret, namely the source factor has to be a superior mind and power, else the notion of creating a universe becomes implausible. Until a sound alternative is at hand, there is no alternative to creationism. To which of the countless stories of creation are you referring? Why is that ONE the only alternative? Oh yeah... It's not. They're all pretty much equally fictional and bogus. 1
michel123456 Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 (edited) (...)An idea I once explored is gravity as a repulsive force. I'm told that one French scientist put forward a fairly well developed theory early in the last century, and the idea makes a lot of sense to me. It seems an interesting way to account for expansion, with or without an initial Bang. (...) That's the Theory of Le Sage . (...)It could explain one mystery of cosmology. That is - why the Universe seems to be expanding. And moreover - expanding at an accelerating rate, instead of slowing down under the influence of its own internal gravity. (...) That's a very sexy description. Edited December 4, 2011 by michel123456
Tres Juicy Posted December 6, 2011 Posted December 6, 2011 It's simple. God is made out of God particles. Pity we haven't discovered them. Higgs bosons
Dekan Posted December 6, 2011 Posted December 6, 2011 Higgs bosons There's no such thing. It defies common sense. Isn't the so-called "Higgs Boson", supposed to give every other particle, the property of "mass"? Then how can the Higgs particle itself have the property of "mass". Is it true that CERN are trying to find the Higgs, by detecting its mass? If so, aren't they trying to find the mass of the thing that causes mass, by finding the mass of the thing which causes mass to the thing which causes mass? Somehow, I got a feeling that CERN won't get anywhere. I bet 100 euros on their finding "no Higgs".
PeterJ Posted December 6, 2011 Posted December 6, 2011 Is this what they're trying to do? Surely not.
IamJoseph Posted December 7, 2011 Posted December 7, 2011 To which of the countless stories of creation are you referring? Why is that ONE the only alternative? Oh yeah... It's not. They're all pretty much equally fictional and bogus. We can say that one which describes an indefinable force is vindicated today from the basis of science, logic and what is manifest - namely the universe is finite [Genesis]: once it never existed and then it was there! This requires a universe maker. IOW, there is no alternatives to creationism from a purely scientific POV. Well, we do have such an alternative What is that aternative? Of note only a finite universe is relevant here.
iNow Posted December 7, 2011 Posted December 7, 2011 We can say that one which describes an indefinable force is vindicated today from the basis of science, logic and what is manifest - namely the universe is finite Super. Can you please now try actually answering the question I asked?
Moontanman Posted December 7, 2011 Posted December 7, 2011 We can say that one which describes an indefinable force is vindicated today from the basis of science, logic and what is manifest - namely the universe is finite [Genesis]: once it never existed and then it was there! This requires a universe maker. IOW, there is no alternatives to creationism from a purely scientific POV. That's a straw man argument, next week evidence could be found that indicates a steady state universe, there is the Ekpyrotic universe model as well and maybe many we don't know of now but none we know of require a supernatural creator. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe What is that aternative? Of note only a finite universe is relevant here. Says who?
IamJoseph Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 That's a straw man argument, next week evidence could be found that indicates a steady state universe, there is the Ekpyrotic universe model as well and maybe many we don't know of now but none we know of require a supernatural creator. http://en.wikipedia....yrotic_universe Says who? Fine, when new evidence turns up, then we can discuss it. But based on a finite universe - the premise stands: no alternatives. Admit this and yu are talkng science; deny it and you are not. To which of the countless stories of creation are you referring? Why is that ONE the only alternative? Oh yeah... It's not. They're all pretty much equally fictional and bogus. There is no 'ONE [a singular, indivisible and irreducible entity] in the universe. For a ONE to exist, it means there is no need for a counterpart or an interaction; it does not depend on time or space for its existence; thus it is not subject to change. The only true definition of infinite is that which is not subject to 'change'. From the above premise, we can see that the universe could not have emerged from one singular entity [no action is possible without a couterpart interaction]. It is thus a scientific fact that there had to be a minimum of two entities to initiate the universe: ONE which was pre-existent and not subject to changes; and the other which appeared later. And this is only possible if the second entity came from the first entity. QED. Well, we do have such an alternative, but it would be heretical in theism and physics so it tends to be overlooked. It would not be a superior mind and it would not create anything except in the sense that fire creates smoke. So we do have a choice, a traditional choice in fact. GO AHEAD, BE NOT SHY! i'M LISTENING, SO QUIT HIDING BEHIND BLASPHEMY CHARADES. WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC ALTERNATE TO A UNIVERSE MAKER FOR A UNIVERSE ['CREATIONISM'] , BASED ON A FINITE UNIVERSE? ANYONE? A brave move, risking a mention of creationism. I would agree that a universe with a beginning needs a phenomena prior to (and post) that beginning to make sense. But creationism is a choice, one among a number of solutions. That is, we can agree about the need for a prior phenomenon without endorsing creationism. Its not brave from the POV there are only two alternatives possible - ths makes it a legitimate scientific premise and the only counter on the table: 1. The universe is infinite, it always existed, it appeared by itself. OR 2. It is finite, once it never existed, thus it could not have appeared by itself because there were once no tools or elements to interact with. Science: it takes two to tango. Either the dancer needs another partner - or tango music playing by itelf. LOL!
iNow Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 There is no 'ONE [a singular, indivisible and irreducible entity] in the universe. For a ONE to exist, it means there is no need for a counterpart or an interaction; it does not depend on time or space for its existence; thus it is not subject to change. The only true definition of infinite is that which is not subject to 'change'. From the above premise, we can see that the universe could not have emerged from one singular entity [no action is possible without a couterpart interaction]. It is thus a scientific fact that there had to be a minimum of two entities to initiate the universe: ONE which was pre-existent and not subject to changes; and the other which appeared later. And this is only possible if the second entity came from the first entity. Super. Can you please now try answering the actual question I asked? Let me repeat it to ensure clarity: To which of the countless stories of creation are you referring? Why is that ONE the only alternative? For further clarity, I asked that after you said this: Here, true creationism is not incorret, namely the source factor has to be a superior mind and power, else the notion of creating a universe becomes implausible. Until a sound alternative is at hand, there is no alternative to creationism. 1
Moontanman Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 Seriously iNow, everyone just knows.... Heinlein knew
iNow Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 I'm not saying believers are stupid, but boy are most of their arguments.
Moontanman Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 Or maybe I should have said, Valentine Michael Smith knew...
IamJoseph Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 (edited) Super. Can you please now try answering the actual question I asked? Let me repeat it to ensure clarity: To which of the countless stories of creation are you referring? Why is that ONE the only alternative? I am not attacking you personally, only what your statements are attempting to justify as if you made a clever observation. Firstly, creationism was introduced in the Hebrew bible; it is the only scripture which does not subscribe to a flat earth, and speaks of one creator for the universe. It also introduced that the stars are unaccountable and contained in the universe; that the universe is finite and based this on the premise of a pristine monotheism. Most surprising, there were no head bashing half man/half lion deities, or Venus type gods battling for supremecy; in fact for the first time an invisible, indefinable and non quantifying creator was presented; for the first time, the formation of the universe is listed in scientific protocol: we see here primodial actions like darkness and light separations; water and land seperations anticipating life; life forms emerging in a correct series of epochs. All this may or may not be actualy true, but it is a most credible premise which remains the only theological statement which is vindicated and not refutable by science - because it is presented one of only two scientific possibilities. One must give credit where it is due before making it look ridiculous. Please show us another form or array of creationisms that got you so coonfused which I was referring to? I am also confused by your question, which you repeated more than once. For further clarity, I asked that after you said this: Here, true creationism is not incorret, namely the source factor has to be a superior mind and power, else the notion of creating a universe becomes implausible. Until a sound alternative is at hand, there is no alternative to creationism. Yes, correct. It is most reasonable to assume a complexity is the result of a more complex mind source. I know that some believe your PC is the result of jitterbugging quarks banging heads randomly over eons of time - but I was speaking scientifically only. I'm not saying believers are stupid, but boy are most of their arguments. How can you say all believers are stupid. Check the nobels, for instance. Any category you like. I'm not saying believers are stupid, but boy are most of their arguments. Understand the relevant and impacting question and respond with a scientific justification! I would be seriously appreciative if someone enlightened me if there is a true ONE in the universe and how it can perform an action without anything else as a counterpart. Also, how is it possible creationism is a bad arguement based on a finite universe. Edited December 10, 2011 by IamJoseph
Moontanman Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 I am not attacking you personally, only what your statements are attempting to justify as if you made a clever observation. Firstly, creationism was introduced in the Hebrew bible; it is the only scripture which does not subscribe to a flat earth, and speaks of one creator for the universe. It also introduced that the stars are unaccountable and contained in the universe; that the universe is finite and based this on the premise of a pristine monotheism. Most surprising, there were no head bashing half man/half lion deities, or Venus type gods battling for supremecy; in fact for the first time an invisible, indefinable and non quantifying creator was presented; for the first time, the formation of the universe is listed in scientific protocol: we see here primodial actions like darkness and light separations; water and land seperations anticipating life; life forms emerging in a correct series of epochs. All this may or may not be actualy true, but it is a most credible premise which remains the only theological statement which is vindicated and not refutable by science - because it is presented one of only two scientific possibilities. One must give credit where it is due before making it look ridiculous. The Hebrew Bible clearly states the earth is a flat disc under a crystal dome surrounded by water both above and below, virtually anyone out on a clear night would assume the stars were uncountable. The primordial actions themselves do not support reality even in a off hand way and the bible clearly states that the stars are fixed to the crustal dome that covers the earth as are the sun and moon. The bible also clearly states that stars can come to the ground and do battle with a human the bible clearly states that pillage, genocide, murder, rape slavery, and child molestation ok as well. The bible contains absolutely no knowledge any normal person of the times didn't believe and none of it was scientific. Please show us another form or array of creationisms that got you so coonfused which I was referring to? I am also confused by your question, which you repeated more than once. I can think of two or three off the top of my head, Hindus Zoastrians and Sieks (sp) have completely different creation stories dedicated to a completely different Pantheon of gods, there are many more... Yes, correct. It is most reasonable to assume a complexity is the result of a more complex mind source. I know that some believe your PC is the result of jitterbugging quarks banging heads randomly over eons of time - but I was speaking scientifically only. No, complexity can arise from chaos, it has been demonstrated many times this is true. Your statement shows you know nothing of what science is or says. How can you say all believers are stupid. Check the nobels, for instance. Any category you like. I do believe he said their arguments were stupid not the individuals, a great many intelligent people have beliefs that are not.... Understand the relevant and impacting question and respond with a scientific justification! Why does adding yet another layer of complexity to something that the only honest answer to is "we don't know?" make it a better explanation? I would be seriously appreciative if someone enlightened me if there is a true ONE in the universe and how it can perform an action without anything else as a counterpart. Why would I want to prove your strawman? Also, how is it possible creationism is a bad arguement based on a finite universe. Because creation does not support the available evidence. I think I'll ask you as well, "How do you know the creation story you are touting is the correct one assuming creationism is true?" I rather like the Norse Gods creation story.
iNow Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 Firstly, creationism was introduced in the Hebrew bible; it is the only scripture which does not subscribe to a flat earth, and speaks of one creator for the universe. It also introduced that the stars are unaccountable and contained in the universe; that the universe is finite and based this on the premise of a pristine monotheism. Most surprising, there were no head bashing half man/half lion deities, or Venus type gods battling for supremecy; in fact for the first time an invisible, indefinable and non quantifying creator was presented; for the first time, the formation of the universe is listed in scientific protocol: we see here primodial actions like darkness and light separations; water and land seperations anticipating life; life forms emerging in a correct series of epochs. All this may or may not be actualy true, but it is a most credible premise "It may or may not be true, but it is the most credible premise." That's what you said. Really? Sorry, but no. You lack credibility until you demonstrate support for your position with evidence. All stammering above really amounts to is, "This one is better because I think it's better." It's a subjective position, and you're essentially here arguing that vanilla is objectively better than chocolate. Your response to my question is not only inadequate, it's also indicative of the fact that your position is even weaker than I originally thought. Don't get me wrong, it's fine if you feel that way, but you're acting as if this opinion of yours is some sort of universal truth. I'm here to point out to you that it's not. Please show us another form or array of creationisms that got you so coonfused which I was referring to? I am also confused by your question, which you repeated more than once. Okay, I can tell that you were confused, and appreciate your unstated request for clarification. You stated that "true" creationism is accurate. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but creation myths are very common across cultures and geographies. There are Norse myths and Navajo myths. There are Hopi myths, Hawaiian myths, and Hungarian myths. There are African and Apache myths, and Intuit and Iroquois myths, and even Egyptian and Chinese creation myths. There are also different myths merely within the abrahamic religions, and different creation stories in Christianity than in Islam. Given the lack of awareness, uninformed nature, self-centered focus, obnoxious, condescending, and arrogant tone of your replies is it correct for me to assume you're referring to the Christian creation myths when you put forth your points in this thread? I ask because these characteristics I just mentioned are rather common when discussing these things among Christians, but perhaps you're Hindu or even Shinto and I just don't realize it? Please let me know. It's not my intent to misrepresent you. Now, regardless of your own beliefs or chosen ideology (maybe you're a subscriber to Ainu or Cherokee or Mbombo or Ngai or perhaps even the Coatlicue creation myth?), you clearly are discussing one specific version of creation fiction or mythology when putting forth your assertions. Hence, my request for clarification. To which creation myth are you referring? Then, once you've answered that minor context setting question, my true question to you still remains. Why is that ONE creation story supposed to be accepted by any of us when it rests on exactly equal evidential footing as the countless others that exist? For what good reason should any special deference be offered to that one set of fictions over any of the others available to us? Why must we accept a fiction at all, when we have perfectly valid tools of exploring and understanding the universe around us without need for those outdated and ignorant stories? Yes, correct. It is most reasonable to assume a complexity is the result of a more complex mind source. It's fine that you feel this way, but it's actually a rather horrible assumption to make. You "assume" this, yet all it does is to make the question more complex. It's the classic "if god created everything, then what created god?" question. You've done little more than introduce and infinite regression into the discussion, and you are only making the search for truth more complex and less likely to yield accurate answers by inserting such unfounded childish nonsense and wish thinking like you've done here. Also, your assertion is simple wrong. There are countless examples of complex items and objects coming from less complex sources, and even more examples of this happening without the need for intervention from a "mind source." You should note that personal incredulity is a terrible position from which to argue, and yet that's what oozes out of nearly every statement you are making. Possibly without realizing it, you're broadcasting little more than examples of your own poor education and understanding of these issues to the world at large. The summary version of this point is that should spend more time studying the components of your assertions and recognizing where they do and do not apply so they're not so easily torn to shreds when you share them. I know that some believe your PC is the result of jitterbugging quarks banging heads randomly over eons of time - but I was speaking scientifically only. Not sure where you're going with this, but it appears as little more than yet another example of your own ignorance on topic, laced with a bit of condescension and rudeness toward others in some vain attempt to discredit them without ever addressing their specific challenges. While my credentials really matter little in a discussion like this, you'd probably be rather embarrassed were I to share them with you here in response to that ridiculous comment about thinking that jitterbugs make computers work. I'm not saying believers are stupid, but boy are most of their arguments. How can you say all believers are stupid. Check the nobels, for instance. Any category you like. While my intent was to be somewhat insulting, your reply merely justifies it instead of rebutting it. Either you're pathetic at reading comprehension, or you just inserted a strawman into the discussion. Please look again at my quote, and then the one you offered in response. Who said anything about "all believers" being stupid? I certainly did not, and that's plain to see in the words you quoted from me. I said, "I'm not saying all believers are stupid," and I said that right at the beginning of the very sentence which you quoted, and to which you responded. And, in that response, you ask "how can you say all believers are stupid?" I didn't actually say that, but interactions like this one with you certainly encourage me to think those thoughts more frequently. Also, how is it possible creationism is a bad arguement based on a finite universe. Because it's roughly equivalent to suggesting that Harry Potter created the universe with his wand. . EDIT: Looks like Moontanman already made some of the same points I did, and beat me to it. 1
Klaynos Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 ! Moderator Note Everyone, please endeavor to keep comments civil and attack arguments not people.Please note this isn't directed at any single user, and is more a comment as to future posts. Please do not reply to this modnote
iNow Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 If there really is a superhuman being out there with a strength levels on par with say Galactus or Eternity in the Marvel comics universe, then what is this being really made of? Is he/it even made from normal atoms of matter? What about dark matter? Well, it's not really possible to say. We have no idea whether such a being exists, so it's sort of a fruitless endeavor to speculate about what it is made of. You may as well be asking if unicorn fur is made of pixie dust or if it's instead made of magical silk from flying carpets. Maybe you wanted to take this thread down a more, "what if" path? Maybe you want to ask what something would need to be made of in order to achieve certain results? A question more like, "If we wanted to make a being that could bend time or fuse atoms at will, what types of biological or chemical processes might be required to achieve this, and how might you have to setup a specifically designed body to do this?" Is that more along the lines of what you are thinking? 2
IamJoseph Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 (edited) You stated that "true" creationism is accurate. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but creation myths are very common across cultures and geographies. There are Norse myths and Navajo myths. There are Hopi myths, Hawaiian myths, and Hungarian myths. There are African and Apache myths, and Intuit and Iroquois myths, and even Egyptian and Chinese creation myths. There are also different myths merely within the abrahamic religions, and different creation stories in Christianity than in Islam. Those are retrospective and varied, not the introduction platform, nor based on a universal picture. Which of them tells us the universe is finite and lists light as a primordial entity, or the emergence of life form groupings in their correct protocol? Given the lack of awareness, uninformed nature, self-centered focus, obnoxious, condescending, and arrogant tone of your replies is it correct for me to assume you're referring to the Christian creation myths when you put forth your points in this thread? I ask because these characteristics I just mentioned are rather common when discussing these things among Christians, but perhaps you're Hindu or even Shinto and I just don't realize it? Please let me know. It's not my intent to misrepresent you. No, Genesis is not a Christian document. Now, regardless of your own beliefs or chosen ideology (maybe you're a subscriber to Ainu or Cherokee or Mbombo or Ngai or perhaps even the Coatlicue creation myth?), you clearly are discussing one specific version of creation fiction or mythology when putting forth your assertions. Hence, my request for clarification. To which creation myth are you referring? There is only one. Creationism is a scientific premise - one of only two possibilities for the universe's emergence. That is why we are quoting from only one document which stands up to debates in science forums. Also, your assertion is simple wrong. There are countless examples of complex items and objects coming from less complex sources, and even more examples of this happening without the need for intervention from a "mind source." You should note that personal incredulity is a terrible position from which to argue, and yet that's what oozes out of nearly every statement you are making. Possibly without realizing it, you're broadcasting little more than examples of your own poor education and understanding of these issues to the world at large. No, there is none and you have not mentioned one. To prempt, chaos is not even a theory: "CHAOS ON FILM: The bouncing motion of a tiny droplet on a soap film becomes unpredictable—a simple way to demonstrate chaos theory." All that so-called evidence says is we have not mustered the means of accounting all the impacts of trillions of factors. Nothing else. It is primitive and deceptive, akin to a coca cola bottle discovered by primitive people: it fell from the Gods, because they yet never knew about planes which can drp such a bottle on their heads. If a butterfly's wings impacts all things in the universe - it does not mean a complexity is the result of simple actions. It does not mean a butterfly's wings can impact an offspring; the seed remains the impacting factor here. We still don't know how the brain and eye works - but it does not mean these are the result of simple environmental atoms becoming more complex. While my credentials really matter little in a discussion like this, you'd probably be rather embarrassed were I to share them with you here in response to that ridiculous comment about thinking that jitterbugs make computers work. Rocket science made simple: a lone particle cannot create an action - nor a universe which is finite and never existed before. It means the particles were yet not born to jitterbug either. Understand why you nor anyone else can supply any answers here! If the original foundation cannot be a result of a simple entity or set of trillion entitites [the environment] creating a universe [because they never yet existed] - then it follows this is not possible after the fact either. While my intent was to be somewhat insulting, your reply merely justifies it instead of rebutting it. Either you're pathetic at reading comprehension, or you just inserted a strawman into the discussion. Please look again at my quote, and then the one you offered in response. Who said anything about "all believers" being stupid? I certainly did not, and that's plain to see in the words you quoted from me. I said, "I'm not saying all believers are stupid," and I said that right at the beginning of the very sentence which you quoted, and to which you responded. And, in that response, you ask "how can you say all believers are stupid?" I didn't actually say that, but interactions like this one with you certainly encourage me to think those thoughts more frequently. I was accused of bringing religious texts, when in fact I presented a scientific premise - which happened to be initiated in a religious writings. The response was not scientific. Now you say those who scientifically negate all your responses are not stupid - only their reasoning is stupid. Very kind of you if there is any difference here. Because it's roughly equivalent to suggesting that Harry Potter created the universe with his wand. Sure. Specially the part in HP's first introduction to humanity the universe is finite, that once everything was a formless mush with no laws [the reason there was no stars, pineapples or gravity laws], the first listing of Potter's list of life forms - and all given us in the first alphabetical book. Let's see the page and verse references in Harry Potter? Well, it's not really possible to say. We have no idea whether such a being exists, so it's sort of a fruitless endeavor to speculate about what it is made of. You may as well be asking if unicorn fur is made of pixie dust or if it's instead made of magical silk from flying carpets. Maybe you wanted to take this thread down a more, "what if" path? Maybe you want to ask what something would need to be made of in order to achieve certain results? A question more like, "If we wanted to make a being that could bend time or fuse atoms at will, what types of biological or chemical processes might be required to achieve this, and how might you have to setup a specifically designed body to do this?" Is that more along the lines of what you are thinking? Q. Is the premise of a universe maker when a universe is manifest - an unscetific premise? No! Its cause and effect. Q. Is the premise moot because we cannot prove the universe maker? No! Because this is generic - we cannot prove its antithesis either. Q. Do we have to prove a universe maker to make it a scientific premise? No! Because its proof may be a pre-universal construct, thereby well outside the human mind's wiring. Q. Do we have to prove there is no universe maker? Absolutely. The flat earth was not negated because Galeleo said so - he actually had to prove it - and he did! Q. Is there proof of a universe maker? Absolutely. When the proof factor cannot be grasped in a lab vise, then the 'sound premise' applies. Q. Does all this affect our daily lives? It does not alter how a car is made, but it does impact the premise if a car was found on Mars - there is a car maker on Mars - even if we cannot find that car maker - a sound premise. And a car making manual does not prove the car happened by simple metal elements become complex Mercs - because a butterfly's wings impacts everything! Q What do we know about origins - of anything? Zero. We do not know where stars or pineapples come from. We know only bits and pieces about things after the fact, namely when we start the descriptions well after the origins point. This is a dynamic clue as to the origins of the universe: it occured and its cause is outside of any criteria seen within the universe. Atoms, quarks, environment are post-universe factors. And there is no such thing as nature! The who-done-it factor hovers and applies unrelenting in every discussion forum around the world. Of note genesis begins with the second alphabet and says of the elusive first one: GO FORTH - DO NOT TURN BACK - THIS ANSWER IS BARRED. Edited December 11, 2011 by IamJoseph -1
iNow Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 There is only one. You can continue repeating yourself, but you're still wrong. I referenced several creation myths in the post to which you're refering. Simply saying "there is only one" doesn't magically make those others disappear. Creationism is a scientific premise If this is true, then certainly you can share with all of us what falsifiable predictions it makes. Further, I want to remind you that you're being intellectually disingenous now. You've suggested that there is only one creation myth despite evidence to the contrary, you've failed to describe which you're talking about despite repeated requests that you do so, and you're now simply disregarding that your assertions have been shown lacking. That is why we are quoting from only one document which stands up to debates in science forums. There is no single document that stands up to debate in science forums. One document does not credible evidence make. All that so-called evidence says is we have not mustered the means of accounting all the impacts of trillions of factors. Nothing else. It is primitive and deceptive I love that this is your argument against science as you sit there supporting myths and fiction. Double standards much? I'm pretty bored with you already. You're merely another ignorant sheep in a quickly dying flock. Have fun with that. 1
IamJoseph Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 (edited) You can continue repeating yourself, but you're still wrong. There's only one true monotheism. The term signifies ONE GOD - indefinable and indescribable, which no image can adequately capture. How can there be more than one!? Know where the buck stops. There is also only one finite universe. Both are recorded only in one document. That sir, is a factual statement and you cannot produce an earlier dcument which says so. The precedence factor rules. Edited December 11, 2011 by IamJoseph -1
Moontanman Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 There's only one true monotheism. The term signifies ONE GOD - indefinable and indescribable, which no image can adequately capture. How can there be more than one!? Know where the buck stops. There is also only one finite universe. Both are recorded only in one document. That sir, is a factual statement and you cannot produce an earlier dcument which says so. The precedence factor rules. No, nothing you are asserting is factual, can you not understand that? There are many writings that predate the Bible, some by a considerable margin. Yours is not the only mono theism and there is no reason to assert that monotheism is correct. You keep making totally false assertions and refuse to support them with anything but repeats of the same false assertions. you are simply using word games to try and impress your audience with your own belief but you fail to understand that belief does not equal knowledge, repeated assertions of the same thing lends absolutely no weight to your argument. Your argument fails on every level and your own incredulity to anything that disagrees with your world view is meaningless.... This might work with people who already want to believe your assertions and lack the education or even the desire to understand how badly you are breaking the ninth commandment in your efforts to show yourself as correct. So far your entire argument is based on the fallacy that the christian bible is somehow not only superior to all other religious writing but also factually accurate when in fact it is neither, when it comes to the description of the real world your book is wrong about nearly everything from cover to cover, believe what you want if you want but do not assert your beliefs as truth unless you can actually back them up with something other than horse feathers. I'm going to suggest a series of videos for you to watch, they might give you an understanding of why you are mistaken, I put this here for you because I hold no ill will toward you and I feel strongly you have never actually been told the truth, bad or good about your holy book. After watching the videos i would very strongly suggest you actually read the bible from cover to cover just like you would any other book. Reading the bible in small sound bites cherry picked by someone else to make a point can make the bible look pretty good but if you actually read it in context you will see it is not a factually accurate description of reality and contains horrific details of actions by a god that if true would qualify him as psychopath. Read your bible, really read it.... http://www.youtube.com/user/brettppalmer#p/c/32CC279BF7082A24/0/oSDXgT2QAf0
iNow Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 There's only one true monotheism. The term signifies ONE GOD - indefinable and indescribable, which no image can adequately capture. How can there be more than one!? More than likely, there is actually less than one, but whatever. Also, one book called the bible does not evidence for existence make.
Phi for All Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 There's only one true monotheism. The term signifies ONE GOD - indefinable and indescribable, which no image can adequately capture. How can there be more than one!? Know where the buck stops. There is also only one finite universe. Both are recorded only in one document. That sir, is a factual statement and you cannot produce an earlier dcument which says so. The precedence factor rules. ! Moderator Note IamJoseph, preaching is not allowed on these forums. If you make a statement you consider a fact, you must provide support and evidence when your "fact" is questioned. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but not their own facts. Please abide by the rules you agreed to when you joined this science forum.
Recommended Posts