Christian 'Mythology'.

[Shaker]

Pray that God would bring people to their knees this side of eternity 😯 Happy New Year.

No thanks. I like standing up on my two feet, like a man.

[trippymonkey]

I know that area very well,  are you sure its fireworks?

OOOHHH Beeeecchhhhh.
May I ask where you know the area from?

Nick

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A Happy New Year to ALL here !!!!!
It's just after 9pm here in north east Lancashire ie Nelson near Burnley & have already heard fireworks ?!!?!??

Nick XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Don't they still wear flared trousers up there?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Monumental question-begging (in the true sense of that phrase)/circular non-reasoning at its finest.

We're trying to establish if there's such a thing as anything that doesn't have a natural cause or explanation. This is not achieved by simply assuming - as you have here - that there already is such a thing but is out of reach.

You will call this a prior commitment to naturalism. You would be absolutely correct. My prior commitment to naturalism is based partly on my own experience of the world (the world has always and in every case - with no exceptions at all in any way whatever - been a material world of matter and energy) and partly on its prior success in explaining and understanding the world. Your commitment to supernaturalism is based as far as I can see on no more than emotional need that there ought to be such a thing.

Mind you a naturalistic universe has to have at least one supernatural feature. That's the family secret though.

[Nearly Sane]

Mind you a naturalistic universe has to have at least one supernatural feature. That's the family secret though.

Mind you, the supernatural is ill defined pish but Vlad will just lie about that openly.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Mind you, the supernatural is ill defined pish but Vlad will just lie about that openly.

Definitions from Wikipedia Sane, Definitions from Wikipedia.

[Nearly Sane]

Definitions from Wikipedia Sane, Definitions from Wikipedia.

How does that mean they aren't ill defined pish on Wikipedia?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How does that mean they aren't ill defined pish on Wikipedia?

I think you are confusing Wikipedia with Rational Wiki.

[Nearly Sane]

I think you are confusing Wikipedia with Rational Wiki.

You struggle in this sort of stuff, don't you. It's the whole  negative proof thing. Citing something as being on any wiki does not make it correct and us open to challenge. You sat ng something is on wikipedia doesn't mean that it is right, and worse in this case doesn't even take into consideration about whether something makes any logical sense. After all, you could've been editing Wikipedia and, given your propensity for lying, that's hardly a recommendation.

[Nearly Sane]

Regarding evidence, with Paul on this one.

16For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.
17For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,fn just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Pray that God would bring people to their knees this side of eternity 😯 Happy New Year.

So thank you for not arguing about evidence but just randomly saying anyone who disagrees with you must be lying.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You struggle in this sort of stuff, don't you. It's the whole  negative proof thing. Citing something as being on any wiki does not make it correct and us open to challenge. You sat ng something is on wikipedia doesn't mean that it is right, and worse in this case doesn't even take into consideration about whether something makes any logical sense. After all, you could've been editing Wikipedia and, given your propensity for lying, that's hardly a recommendation.

Oh dear.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh dear.

argument beyond you now, darling?

[Shaker]

Mind you a naturalistic universe has to have at least one supernatural feature.

Does it?

Why?

[SusanDoris]

What a magnificent post.

It certainly is. Apart from a short time yesterday morning, I kept getting 'This page can't be displayed' on IE, so it is an excellent  start to the new year to read the above posts.

[SusanDoris]

No thanks. I like standing up on my two feet, like a man.

If ever a god turned up and I met him/her/it, I'd talk i to him/her/it on equal terms, as I presume that is what he/she/it would wish!

[trippymonkey]

If ever a god turned up and I met him/her/it, I'd talk i to him/her/it on equal terms, as I presume that is what he/she/it would wish!

What do you mean by 'equal terms'? Looking like a human being - which YOU won't anyway, most likely.??

[SusanDoris]

If ever a god turned up and I met him/her/it, I'd talk i to him/her/it on equal terms, as I presume that is what he/she/it would wish!

I would not feel myself in any way of less or more worth as a being. I would give due respect to qualities learned or gained and praiseworthy achievements and would expect an equal respect in return. Difficult to say really, but I would not bow down to or humble myself before said being nor would I act in any way to indicate that I felt superior to him/her/it.

[trippymonkey]

So you DO feel superior - may I ask how & why?

Nick

[SusanDoris]

So you DO feel superior - may I ask how & why?

Nick

Well, I don't know how you gathered that from my post; the whole point of it was to make it clear that I do not feel superior or inferior to anyone as a human being.

[Walter]

OOOHHH Beeeecchhhhh.
May I ask where you know the area from?

Nick

You may,
I made a  living from the good people of Nelson and the surrounding towns for many years while working in the financial industry.

[ippy]

You may,
I made a  living from the good people of Nelson and the surrounding towns for many years while working in the financial industry.

What? In one of those security vans collecting the daily takings from supermarkets etc?

ippy

[Walter]

What? In one of those security vans collecting the daily takings from supermarkets etc?

ippy

yeah, something like that!

[Sassy]

You need a method to establish what the bloody phrase 'Son of God' means to start with.

Actually, Dicky,

You need to know the OT and the teachings..

Luke 3:38  Adam was the Son of God. In that his Father was God no earthly Father but he was created in Gods image. He was without sin originally..
Jesus Christ is the Son of God because like Adam he had no earthly Father but was created by the word and power of God. The word became flesh.

As Christ shows a Son does as his Father does. Hence stones could be turned into descendants of Abraham because Sons do as their father does.  Abraham's  descendants were not doing as Abraham did.

Job 38:7 King James Version (KJV)

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

The angels like God do not sin they are his sons because they do the will of God.
As Christ did the will of God. Adam chose to disobey God.

Jesus said:  35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

Jesus being the Son of God meant he did as his Father did. He came to do his Fathers will not his own. A change to Adam who followed his own will and not the will of God.

[Rosindubh]

p
I can only assume you've never heard of quantum mechanics. I think the same of every person who spouts the slogan that the universe is a comprehensible, knowable place.

It isn't

Hi Shaker,
Thanks for the above post.

Of course most people on this board will have heard of Quantum Mechanics (and Schrödinger's Cat).   Hopefully, they have also heard of its probabilistic nature, and its reducability to mathematical equations (due to discoveries from Heisenberg, Dirac etc).

So, contrary to what you say above, QM is 'comprehensible' to beings of sufficient intelligence, although not in accordance with the ideas of 'classical' physics for larger bodies.   We need intelligence to be happy with the QM mathematical equations and probabilities, which point to a mathematical intelligence underlying the Universe.

If we do not accept the 'comprehensibility' of QM (and the mathematical nature of the Universe), how then do we account for the successes at CERN in confirming the Higgs boson and field?   The mathematical equations of the Standard Model of Partical Physics identified these 40 years before the physical measurements could be done.

God bless

[Rosindubh]

As for the universe being understandable, please explain quantum entanglement and the double slit experiment findings (but don't look)

Hi Walter,
Thanks for the above post.

Both may be expressed mathematically.   

Anything convertible into mathematical equations becomes 'understandable' in scientific terms.   This means 'intelligible' rather than 'user-friendly'.   Nothing in Quantum Mechanics is 'user-friendly' but everything is convertible into mathematical equations.   That is the essence of modern physics.

Science cannot progress unless scientists believe that current mysteries can each be resolved eventually by their efforts.   In the case of physics, this will be by abstract mathematical equations initially, to be followed by verification from experimental measurement (same sequence as worked for the Higgs field).

Modern physics is so dependent on maths, that it is impossible to even discuss much of its current work in any other terms.   If the current differences between QM and classical gravity is eventually resolved (a Theory of Everything), it will be in mathematical terms because cause and effect can no longer be discussed in any other way.

If abstract maths is not an objective reality (independent of the human mind), then QM is meaningless, but if it is an objective reality, then it is an intelligent abstract force permeating and controlling the Universe (ie the Logos of Christianity).

God bless