Just curious - how did God make us in his image if he can't intervene in the physical universe?Waco1947 said:God does sustain us in faith that is my point. You and I are in agreement but "God is in control." Is what people say and that notion needs unpacking. "Sustaining" is a great word. Well done.Forest Bueller_bf said:
1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
Instead of using the word control, which God can do since he is God, sustain is a better word to me. He sustains us, and he sustains the Universe, by His power. The word "control" indicated a puppet master, when in fact we have free will. He has created, he has set in motion, and he sustains His wonderful creation, by His mighty power.
This is a good thing.
"God is control." I hear that phrase a lot.
29,226 Views |
402 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by Waco1947
Genesis 1 is a faith story not a history. The faith story says we are made in God's image. God's image is love.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Just curious - how did God make us in his image if he can't intervene in the physical universe?Waco1947 said:God does sustain us in faith that is my point. You and I are in agreement but "God is in control." Is what people say and that notion needs unpacking. "Sustaining" is a great word. Well done.Forest Bueller_bf said:
1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
Instead of using the word control, which God can do since he is God, sustain is a better word to me. He sustains us, and he sustains the Universe, by His power. The word "control" indicated a puppet master, when in fact we have free will. He has created, he has set in motion, and he sustains His wonderful creation, by His mighty power.
This is a good thing.
Genesis 1 is not history but faith. I will defend and take very seriously the Bible's faith foundation but not its historicity. There is a difference. Learn what historicity is otherwise you will trapped defending a story never meant to be literal on a playing field of historical scholarship. Texas's Scientist will cut off all that nonsense. You cannot win.
But don't lose hope. Base your understanding of Genesis 1 on faith and love. You will win that argument. TxS cannot counter our faith story of love.
Creation still requires a creator.Waco1947 said:Genesis 1 is a faith story not a history. The faith story says we are made in God's image. God's image is love.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Just curious - how did God make us in his image if he can't intervene in the physical universe?Waco1947 said:God does sustain us in faith that is my point. You and I are in agreement but "God is in control." Is what people say and that notion needs unpacking. "Sustaining" is a great word. Well done.Forest Bueller_bf said:
1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
Instead of using the word control, which God can do since he is God, sustain is a better word to me. He sustains us, and he sustains the Universe, by His power. The word "control" indicated a puppet master, when in fact we have free will. He has created, he has set in motion, and he sustains His wonderful creation, by His mighty power.
This is a good thing.
Genesis 1 is not history but faith. I will defend and take very seriously the Bible's faith foundation but not its historicity. There is a difference. Learn what historicity is otherwise you will trapped defending a story never meant to be literal on a playing field of historical scholarship. Texas's Scientist will cut off all that nonsense. You cannot win.
But don't lose hope. Base your understanding of Genesis 1 on faith and love. You will win that argument. TxS cannot counter our faith story of love.
Says who what physicist or scientist?
Stay in theology. Theology concerns itself with the spiritual (specifically God islobe) not the object world.
You are trying to sneak God into an object world. Stay spiritual my friend.
Stay in theology. Theology concerns itself with the spiritual (specifically God islobe) not the object world.
You are trying to sneak God into an object world. Stay spiritual my friend.
Science is the study of God's handiwork.Waco1947 said:
Says who what physicist or scientist?
Stay in theology. Theology concerns itself with the spiritual (specifically God islobe) not the object world.
You are trying to sneak God into an object world. Stay spiritual my friend.
Science can test, examine, experiment with a physical world.
Science cannot "test" the spiritual world. Christian theology can test, experiment with, examine and question and judge according to this theism - God is love. Secular Christians can affirm this theism.
Science cannot. Theism is not within the purview of science.
Science cannot "test" the spiritual world. Christian theology can test, experiment with, examine and question and judge according to this theism - God is love. Secular Christians can affirm this theism.
Science cannot. Theism is not within the purview of science.
Waco thinks he outranks God.
That is the sum of the matter.
That is the sum of the matter.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
The belief that "God is love" is based on faith, the same faith you discount regarding creation.Waco1947 said:
Science can test, examine, experiment with a physical world.
Science cannot "test" the spiritual world. Christian theology can test, experiment with, examine and question and judge according to this theism - God is love. Secular Christians can affirm this theism.
Science cannot. Theism is not with the purview of science.
Oldbear83 said:
Lots to unpack from your post, TS, so let me respond by point, please:
TS: "If heaven is going to be utopia, but you still have free will there, then why wouldn't Yahweh have put all living things in the Universe, including people, there to begin with?"
First, I think you make a mistake by imagining 'Utopia'. One detriment to lack of a classical education, is that people fail to understand that 'Utopia' literally means 'no where', as in a place which cannot exist.
I would suggest that a better concept would be a place where everything is as it should be, which also explains why we do not start there. The Bible tells us we started in Eden, which is Paradise, but screwed up the place through our decisions and actions. To you this may be just a fable, but if one accepts that Adam and Eve, who were not born in sin, screwed up, then anyone who was human would sooner or later screw up. I know you're not into Bible reading TS, but if you read through the Bible you will find many accounts of human failing and redemption through God's love.
Therefore, it makes sense that heaven would be a place God has prepared for us after we have learned from our mistakes and His grace.
TS: " Why subject them to struggles and misfortunes of this life?"
Why did you go to school? Why did you have to complete assignments and study for tests? When you started working, why did you start at the bottom of the crew, with no credibility or reputation? Don't you have to work your way to accomplishment, even if you have great potential? The struggles and misfortunes of this life serve to remind us not to love the short life here too much, to be sensitive and compassionate to those around us who suffer, that we might work to ease each other's pain and troubles, and we grow through challenges and tests of life.
TS: " Why require them to believe in just one religion out of thousands?"
You see from an invalid perspective. Why does 2+2 equal 4 and not whatever we want it to be? Why are there specific chemical properties, so that we are warned against mixing certain chemicals, and to check our numbers before we put something into practice? Why does computer code have to be written in a certain syntax?
Everything requires order, and one cannot serve God while denying Him. It matters therefore that we seek God in our hearts and work, and love each other as creations of God. If someone is able to do this, the details will sort themselves out in due time.
TS: " Would any loving god really require all of the convoluted mental gymnastics necessary, to reconcile all of the biblical contradictions, and inconsistencies?"
You see what you believe to be 'contradictions', although they are not, because you are bigoted against believing, and so you create excuses to run from God. It's important to understand Scripture In context, and not confuse it for something it never claimed to be.
Jesus once advised people to give Caesar what was his, and to give God what is His. The same principle applies here to biblical wisdom.
TS: " Why require the convoluted justification of biblical atrocities that one has to embrace, in order to convince oneself the religious culture one is born into is true and virtuous?"
Strange, the only atrocities I see in Scripture were evils done by men, and are no worse than atrocities still committed today.
You seem to be confusing human behavior for divine direction. And you certainly seem blind to the history of humanism.
TS: " Would a benevolent god place mankind in this position, in a chaotic universe, demanding blind faith in the unbelievable, without objective evidence, and under penalty for failure to believe?"
All this question tells me is that you are emotionally bigoted against faith, and desperately want God to be under human control. Your demand for "objective evidence', for example, amounts to nothing more than demanding God prove Himself to human satisfaction, limited to human comprehension and human standards.
That notion is frankly absurd if you give it any real thought.
TS: " Isn't it all nonsense?"
No, faith is not 'nonsense'. It is beautiful, like the trust of a child and the love of a couple who have been married a half-century. Faith makes things possible which ordinary humans cannot imagine will ever be so.
TS: " Isn't belief nonsense?"
No. Belief is the necessary floor on which all accomplishment starts its walk. This is true of secular atheists as much as the most devout priest.
Good answer. It's very similar to the answers that TS received the last four or five times he's asked this exact same question (with minor variations).
Waco1947 said:
Says who what physicist or scientist?
Stay in theology. Theology concerns itself with the spiritual (specifically God islobe) not the object world.
You are trying to sneak God into an object world. Stay spiritual my friend.
Are you really making the argument that there are no scientists who conclude that creation requires a creator?
You want to talk about things that are spiritual rather than physical, but drawing a distinction between the physical and spiritual is not all that relevant if you also claim that God is real. If you claim that God is real, then the realm of science is only examining one facet of reality.
In any event, Christian belief is that God is spirit and also that God intervened physically in the world.
You can say this about all religions.fadskier said:YesMidnight Rider said:I don't know if there is a God. If there happens to be a God, I don't know if he is in control (or is control). I don't know if there is a heaven. But I have an innate curiosity about these things, which draws me into theological discussions.fadskier said:Don't know what? If God is in control? If God is control (as in the op.) If there is a Heaven? What?Midnight Rider said:Because I don't know.fadskier said:If you don't care, why are you here?Midnight Rider said:
And won't we all be surprised if we find there ain't no pearly gates, above us only sky, and all this debate about whose understanding of the scripture is correct is just a bunch of mental masturbation.
I'm not sure
Yes
I would say this. If you believe in God, accept Jesus as your Savior and it all turns out false...you've lost nothing. It it turns out to be true, you've gained everything.
Not really. Scientology for example ...UBBY said:You can say this about all religions.fadskier said:YesMidnight Rider said:I don't know if there is a God. If there happens to be a God, I don't know if he is in control (or is control). I don't know if there is a heaven. But I have an innate curiosity about these things, which draws me into theological discussions.fadskier said:Don't know what? If God is in control? If God is control (as in the op.) If there is a Heaven? What?Midnight Rider said:Because I don't know.fadskier said:If you don't care, why are you here?Midnight Rider said:
And won't we all be surprised if we find there ain't no pearly gates, above us only sky, and all this debate about whose understanding of the scripture is correct is just a bunch of mental masturbation.
I'm not sure
Yes
I would say this. If you believe in God, accept Jesus as your Savior and it all turns out false...you've lost nothing. It it turns out to be true, you've gained everything.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Ok then, most religions.Oldbear83 said:Not really. Scientology for example ...UBBY said:You can say this about all religions.fadskier said:YesMidnight Rider said:I don't know if there is a God. If there happens to be a God, I don't know if he is in control (or is control). I don't know if there is a heaven. But I have an innate curiosity about these things, which draws me into theological discussions.fadskier said:Don't know what? If God is in control? If God is control (as in the op.) If there is a Heaven? What?Midnight Rider said:Because I don't know.fadskier said:If you don't care, why are you here?Midnight Rider said:
And won't we all be surprised if we find there ain't no pearly gates, above us only sky, and all this debate about whose understanding of the scripture is correct is just a bunch of mental masturbation.
I'm not sure
Yes
I would say this. If you believe in God, accept Jesus as your Savior and it all turns out false...you've lost nothing. It it turns out to be true, you've gained everything.
What is more likely? All religions are right? 1 of them is right or none of them are right?
Prove it.Coke Bear said:Science is the study of God's handiwork.Waco1947 said:
Says who what physicist or scientist?
Stay in theology. Theology concerns itself with the spiritual (specifically God islobe) not the object world.
You are trying to sneak God into an object world. Stay spiritual my friend.
For those can think critically I am reposting my comment,Waco1947 said:
Science can test, examine, experiment with a physical world.
Science cannot "test" the spiritual world. Christian theology can test, experiment with, examine and question and judge according to this theism - God is love. Secular Christians can affirm this theism.
Science cannot. Theism is not within the purview of science.
Says who - what physicist or scientist?D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:
Says who what physicist or scientist?
Stay in theology. Theology concerns itself with the spiritual (specifically God islobe) not the object world.
You are trying to sneak God into an object world. Stay spiritual my friend.
Are you really making the argument that there are no scientists who conclude that creation requires a creator?
You want to talk about things that are spiritual rather than physical, but drawing a distinction between the physical and spiritual is not all that relevant if you also claim that God is real. If you claim that God is real, then the realm of science is only examining one facet of reality.
In any event, Christian belief is that God is spirit and also that God intervened physically in the world.
Stay in theology. Theology concerns itself with the spiritual (specifically God is love) not the object world.
You are trying to sneak God into an object world. Stay spiritual my friend. Again look at love for your faith not trying to prove God with science. You can't.
If only we could convince you of the truth of this statement.Waco1947 said:
Theism is not within the purview of science.
The burden is on you. It's your claim.Sam Lowry said:If only we could convince you of the truth of this statement.Waco1947 said:
Theism is not within the purview of science.
Science the Bible - God is deals in an object world, physics, biology, chemistry.
Theism deals in spirituality - specifically God is love. The most consistent notion throughout the Bible and is the most defensible notion about God.
Actually it's your claim, but you contradict it almost every time you post. You claim that theism is outside the purview of science, and then you claim that theism - which is outside the purview of science, remember - must be proven by science in order to be valid.Waco1947 said:The burden is on you. It's your claim.Sam Lowry said:If only we could convince you of the truth of this statement.Waco1947 said:
Theism is not within the purview of science.
Science the Bible - God is deals in an object world, physics, biology, chemistry.
Theism deals in spirituality - specifically God is love. The most consistent notion throughout the Bible and is the most defensible notion about God.
You can't have it both ways.
You misunderstand. It is your claim that God/theism is within the purview of science - creation-creator. Theism is not within the purview of science but if you believe which apparently you do then the onus is on you to prove it "scientifically."Sam Lowry said:Actually it's your claim, but you contradict it almost every time you post. You claim that theism is outside the purview of science, and then you claim that theism - which is outside the purview of science, remember - must be proven by science in order to be valid.Waco1947 said:The burden is on you. It's your claim.Sam Lowry said:If only we could convince you of the truth of this statement.Waco1947 said:
Theism is not within the purview of science.
Science the Bible - God is deals in an object world, physics, biology, chemistry.
Theism deals in spirituality - specifically God is love. The most consistent notion throughout the Bible and is the most defensible notion about God.
You can't have it both ways.
I will go back to what I said to TexasScientist:UBBY said:Ok then, most religions.Oldbear83 said:Not really. Scientology for example ...UBBY said:You can say this about all religions.fadskier said:YesMidnight Rider said:I don't know if there is a God. If there happens to be a God, I don't know if he is in control (or is control). I don't know if there is a heaven. But I have an innate curiosity about these things, which draws me into theological discussions.fadskier said:Don't know what? If God is in control? If God is control (as in the op.) If there is a Heaven? What?Midnight Rider said:Because I don't know.fadskier said:If you don't care, why are you here?Midnight Rider said:
And won't we all be surprised if we find there ain't no pearly gates, above us only sky, and all this debate about whose understanding of the scripture is correct is just a bunch of mental masturbation.
I'm not sure
Yes
I would say this. If you believe in God, accept Jesus as your Savior and it all turns out false...you've lost nothing. It it turns out to be true, you've gained everything.
What is more likely? All religions are right? 1 of them is right or none of them are right?
TS: "If heaven is going to be utopia, but you still have free will there, then why wouldn't Yahweh have put all living things in the Universe, including people, there to begin with?"
First, I think you make a mistake by imagining 'Utopia'. One detriment to lack of a classical education, is that people fail to understand that 'Utopia' literally means 'no where', as in a place which cannot exist.
I would suggest that a better concept would be a place where everything is as it should be, which also explains why we do not start there. The Bible tells us we started in Eden, which is Paradise, but screwed up the place through our decisions and actions. To you this may be just a fable, but if one accepts that Adam and Eve, who were not born in sin, screwed up, then anyone who was human would sooner or later screw up. I know you're not into Bible reading TS, but if you read through the Bible you will find many accounts of human failing and redemption through God's love.
Therefore, it makes sense that heaven would be a place God has prepared for us after we have learned from our mistakes and His grace.
TS: " Why subject them to struggles and misfortunes of this life?"
Why did you go to school? Why did you have to complete assignments and study for tests? When you started working, why did you start at the bottom of the crew, with no credibility or reputation? Don't you have to work your way to accomplishment, even if you have great potential? The struggles and misfortunes of this life serve to remind us not to love the short life here too much, to be sensitive and compassionate to those around us who suffer, that we might work to ease each other's pain and troubles, and we grow through challenges and tests of life.
TS: " Why require them to believe in just one religion out of thousands?"
You see from an invalid perspective. Why does 2+2 equal 4 and not whatever we want it to be? Why are there specific chemical properties, so that we are warned against mixing certain chemicals, and to check our numbers before we put something into practice? Why does computer code have to be written in a certain syntax?
Everything requires order, and one cannot serve God while denying Him. It matters therefore that we seek God in our hearts and work, and love each other as creations of God. If someone is able to do this, the details will sort themselves out in due time.
TS: " Would any loving god really require all of the convoluted mental gymnastics necessary, to reconcile all of the biblical contradictions, and inconsistencies?"
You see what you believe to be 'contradictions', although they are not, because you are bigoted against believing, and so you create excuses to run from God. It's important to understand Scripture In context, and not confuse it for something it never claimed to be.
Jesus once advised people to give Caesar what was his, and to give God what is His. The same principle applies here to biblical wisdom.
TS: " Why require the convoluted justification of biblical atrocities that one has to embrace, in order to convince oneself the religious culture one is born into is true and virtuous?"
Strange, the only atrocities I see in Scripture were evils done by men, and are no worse than atrocities still committed today.
You seem to be confusing human behavior for divine direction. And you certainly seem blind to the history of humanism.
TS: " Would a benevolent god place mankind in this position, in a chaotic universe, demanding blind faith in the unbelievable, without objective evidence, and under penalty for failure to believe?"
All this question tells me is that you are emotionally bigoted against faith, and desperately want God to be under human control. Your demand for "objective evidence', for example, amounts to nothing more than demanding God prove Himself to human satisfaction, limited to human comprehension and human standards.
That notion is frankly absurd if you give it any real thought.
TS: " Isn't it all nonsense?"
No, faith is not 'nonsense'. It is beautiful, like the trust of a child and the love of a couple who have been married a half-century. Faith makes things possible which ordinary humans cannot imagine will ever be so.
TS: " Isn't belief nonsense?"
No. Belief is the necessary floor on which all accomplishment starts its walk. This is true of secular atheists as much as the most devout priest.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
No, that isn't my claim. To say God created the physical universe is not to say God can be scientifically tested, examined, or experimented with.Waco1947 said:You misunderstand. It is your claim that God/theism is within the purview of science - creation-creator. Theism is not within the purview of science but if you believe which apparently you do then the onus is on you to prove it "scientifically."Sam Lowry said:Actually it's your claim, but you contradict it almost every time you post. You claim that theism is outside the purview of science, and then you claim that theism - which is outside the purview of science, remember - must be proven by science in order to be valid.Waco1947 said:The burden is on you. It's your claim.Sam Lowry said:If only we could convince you of the truth of this statement.Waco1947 said:
Theism is not within the purview of science.
Science the Bible - God is deals in an object world, physics, biology, chemistry.
Theism deals in spirituality - specifically God is love. The most consistent notion throughout the Bible and is the most defensible notion about God.
You can't have it both ways.
Waco1947 said:Says who - what physicist or scientist?D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:
Says who what physicist or scientist?
Stay in theology. Theology concerns itself with the spiritual (specifically God islobe) not the object world.
You are trying to sneak God into an object world. Stay spiritual my friend.
Are you really making the argument that there are no scientists who conclude that creation requires a creator?
You want to talk about things that are spiritual rather than physical, but drawing a distinction between the physical and spiritual is not all that relevant if you also claim that God is real. If you claim that God is real, then the realm of science is only examining one facet of reality.
In any event, Christian belief is that God is spirit and also that God intervened physically in the world.
Stay in theology. Theology concerns itself with the spiritual (specifically God is love) not the object world.
You are trying to sneak God into an object world. Stay spiritual my friend. Again look at love for your faith not trying to prove God with science. You can't.
I don't need to prove God with science. I am asking you if you actually believe there aren't scientists who say that the creation requires a creator. Are you really making that argument?
Waco1947 said:
Prove it.
The Universe.
Everything we use science to study was designed by God.
Therefore, science is the study of God's handiwork.
The Bible says it's the handiwork of God not science. Try againCoke Bear said:Waco1947 said:
Prove it.
The Universe.
Everything we use science to study was designed by God.
Therefore, science is the study of God's handiwork.
If you are going to argue with TXS or secular people then you need science.D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:Says who - what physicist or scientist?D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:
Says who what physicist or scientist?
Stay in theology. Theology concerns itself with the spiritual (specifically God islobe) not the object world.
You are trying to sneak God into an object world. Stay spiritual my friend.
Are you really making the argument that there are no scientists who conclude that creation requires a creator?
You want to talk about things that are spiritual rather than physical, but drawing a distinction between the physical and spiritual is not all that relevant if you also claim that God is real. If you claim that God is real, then the realm of science is only examining one facet of reality.
In any event, Christian belief is that God is spirit and also that God intervened physically in the world.
Stay in theology. Theology concerns itself with the spiritual (specifically God is love) not the object world.
You are trying to sneak God into an object world. Stay spiritual my friend. Again look at love for your faith not trying to prove God with science. You can't.
I don't need to prove God with science. I am asking you if you actually believe there aren't scientists who say that the creation requires a creator. Are you really making that argument?
Yes it is. The moment you say "physical" you have introduced science to the discussion. God is not science but spirit.Sam Lowry said:No, that isn't my claim. To say God created the physical universe is not to say God can be scientifically tested, examined, or experimented with.Waco1947 said:You misunderstand. It is your claim that God/theism is within the purview of science - creation-creator. Theism is not within the purview of science but if you believe which apparently you do then the onus is on you to prove it "scientifically."Sam Lowry said:Actually it's your claim, but you contradict it almost every time you post. You claim that theism is outside the purview of science, and then you claim that theism - which is outside the purview of science, remember - must be proven by science in order to be valid.Waco1947 said:The burden is on you. It's your claim.Sam Lowry said:If only we could convince you of the truth of this statement.Waco1947 said:
Theism is not within the purview of science.
Science the Bible - God is deals in an object world, physics, biology, chemistry.
Theism deals in spirituality - specifically God is love. The most consistent notion throughout the Bible and is the most defensible notion about God.
You can't have it both ways.
See Genesis 1:1
Oldbear "All this question tells me is that you are emotionally bigoted against faith, and desperately want God to be under human control. Your demand for "objective evidence', for example, amounts to nothing more than demanding God prove Himself to human satisfaction, limited to human comprehension and human standards.
That notion is frankly absurd if you give it any real thought."
'Emotionally bigoted' is an opinion. TS doesn't want "to control God" but simply say God is not found in science.
Your best rejoinder is "God is found in your heart, soul and spirit as love."
TS probably loves. That's the way to his heart not his mind.
That notion is frankly absurd if you give it any real thought."
'Emotionally bigoted' is an opinion. TS doesn't want "to control God" but simply say God is not found in science.
Your best rejoinder is "God is found in your heart, soul and spirit as love."
TS probably loves. That's the way to his heart not his mind.
Waco1947 said:
The Bible says it's the handiwork of God not science. Try again
Who made the Universe?
Why would I refer to Genesis in a discussion of science? You keep trying to have it both ways.Waco1947 said:Yes it is. The moment you say "physical" you have introduced science to the discussion. God is not science but spirit.Sam Lowry said:No, that isn't my claim. To say God created the physical universe is not to say God can be scientifically tested, examined, or experimented with.Waco1947 said:You misunderstand. It is your claim that God/theism is within the purview of science - creation-creator. Theism is not within the purview of science but if you believe which apparently you do then the onus is on you to prove it "scientifically."Sam Lowry said:Actually it's your claim, but you contradict it almost every time you post. You claim that theism is outside the purview of science, and then you claim that theism - which is outside the purview of science, remember - must be proven by science in order to be valid.Waco1947 said:The burden is on you. It's your claim.Sam Lowry said:If only we could convince you of the truth of this statement.Waco1947 said:
Theism is not within the purview of science.
Science the Bible - God is deals in an object world, physics, biology, chemistry.
Theism deals in spirituality - specifically God is love. The most consistent notion throughout the Bible and is the most defensible notion about God.
You can't have it both ways.
See Genesis 1:1
Waco1947 said:If you are going to argue with TXS or secular people then you need science.D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:Says who - what physicist or scientist?D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:
Says who what physicist or scientist?
Stay in theology. Theology concerns itself with the spiritual (specifically God islobe) not the object world.
You are trying to sneak God into an object world. Stay spiritual my friend.
Are you really making the argument that there are no scientists who conclude that creation requires a creator?
You want to talk about things that are spiritual rather than physical, but drawing a distinction between the physical and spiritual is not all that relevant if you also claim that God is real. If you claim that God is real, then the realm of science is only examining one facet of reality.
In any event, Christian belief is that God is spirit and also that God intervened physically in the world.
Stay in theology. Theology concerns itself with the spiritual (specifically God is love) not the object world.
You are trying to sneak God into an object world. Stay spiritual my friend. Again look at love for your faith not trying to prove God with science. You can't.
I don't need to prove God with science. I am asking you if you actually believe there aren't scientists who say that the creation requires a creator. Are you really making that argument?
No, actually, I don't. In any event, I am asking you a question.
Do you actually believe there aren't scientists who say that the creation requires a creator? Yes or no?
Because creation needs a creator hence Genesis 1Sam Lowry said:Why would I refer to Genesis in a discussion of science? You keep trying to have it both ways.Waco1947 said:Yes it is. The moment you say "physical" you have introduced science to the discussion. God is not science but spirit.Sam Lowry said:No, that isn't my claim. To say God created the physical universe is not to say God can be scientifically tested, examined, or experimented with.Waco1947 said:You misunderstand. It is your claim that God/theism is within the purview of science - creation-creator. Theism is not within the purview of science but if you believe which apparently you do then the onus is on you to prove it "scientifically."Sam Lowry said:Actually it's your claim, but you contradict it almost every time you post. You claim that theism is outside the purview of science, and then you claim that theism - which is outside the purview of science, remember - must be proven by science in order to be valid.Waco1947 said:The burden is on you. It's your claim.Sam Lowry said:If only we could convince you of the truth of this statement.Waco1947 said:
Theism is not within the purview of science.
Science the Bible - God is deals in an object world, physics, biology, chemistry.
Theism deals in spirituality - specifically God is love. The most consistent notion throughout the Bible and is the most defensible notion about God.
You can't have it both ways.
See Genesis 1:1
I don't know but it doesn't help your argument. It's not a numbers game it's physics. Can God over rule physics?D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:If you are going to argue with TXS or secular people then you need science.D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:Says who - what physicist or scientist?D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:
Says who what physicist or scientist?
Stay in theology. Theology concerns itself with the spiritual (specifically God islobe) not the object world.
You are trying to sneak God into an object world. Stay spiritual my friend.
Are you really making the argument that there are no scientists who conclude that creation requires a creator?
You want to talk about things that are spiritual rather than physical, but drawing a distinction between the physical and spiritual is not all that relevant if you also claim that God is real. If you claim that God is real, then the realm of science is only examining one facet of reality.
In any event, Christian belief is that God is spirit and also that God intervened physically in the world.
Stay in theology. Theology concerns itself with the spiritual (specifically God is love) not the object world.
You are trying to sneak God into an object world. Stay spiritual my friend. Again look at love for your faith not trying to prove God with science. You can't.
I don't need to prove God with science. I am asking you if you actually believe there aren't scientists who say that the creation requires a creator. Are you really making that argument?
No, actually, I don't. In any event, I am asking you a question.
Do you actually believe there aren't scientists who say that the creation requires a creator? Yes or no?
Waco1947 said:I don't know but it doesn't help your argument. It's not a numbers game it's physics. Can God on physics?D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:If you are going to argue with TXS or secular people then you need science.D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:Says who - what physicist or scientist?D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:
Says who what physicist or scientist?
Stay in theology. Theology concerns itself with the spiritual (specifically God islobe) not the object world.
You are trying to sneak God into an object world. Stay spiritual my friend.
Are you really making the argument that there are no scientists who conclude that creation requires a creator?
You want to talk about things that are spiritual rather than physical, but drawing a distinction between the physical and spiritual is not all that relevant if you also claim that God is real. If you claim that God is real, then the realm of science is only examining one facet of reality.
In any event, Christian belief is that God is spirit and also that God intervened physically in the world.
Stay in theology. Theology concerns itself with the spiritual (specifically God is love) not the object world.
You are trying to sneak God into an object world. Stay spiritual my friend. Again look at love for your faith not trying to prove God with science. You can't.
I don't need to prove God with science. I am asking you if you actually believe there aren't scientists who say that the creation requires a creator. Are you really making that argument?
No, actually, I don't. In any event, I am asking you a question.
Do you actually believe there aren't scientists who say that the creation requires a creator? Yes or no?
1. You don't know? A few posts back you were pontificating about how "scientists" didn't believe creation required a creator.
2. Do you speak English?
Yes, God rules over Physics.Waco1947 said:I don't know but it doesn't help your argument. It's not a numbers game it's physics. Can God over rule physics?D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:If you are going to argue with TXS or secular people then you need science.D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:Says who - what physicist or scientist?D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:
Says who what physicist or scientist?
Stay in theology. Theology concerns itself with the spiritual (specifically God islobe) not the object world.
You are trying to sneak God into an object world. Stay spiritual my friend.
Are you really making the argument that there are no scientists who conclude that creation requires a creator?
You want to talk about things that are spiritual rather than physical, but drawing a distinction between the physical and spiritual is not all that relevant if you also claim that God is real. If you claim that God is real, then the realm of science is only examining one facet of reality.
In any event, Christian belief is that God is spirit and also that God intervened physically in the world.
Stay in theology. Theology concerns itself with the spiritual (specifically God is love) not the object world.
You are trying to sneak God into an object world. Stay spiritual my friend. Again look at love for your faith not trying to prove God with science. You can't.
I don't need to prove God with science. I am asking you if you actually believe there aren't scientists who say that the creation requires a creator. Are you really making that argument?
No, actually, I don't. In any event, I am asking you a question.
Do you actually believe there aren't scientists who say that the creation requires a creator? Yes or no?
Waco, however, praises man but not God, so he will deny the truth.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier