(October 24, 2015 at 12:45 pm)robvalue Wrote: Eternal universe = how would that even work, it must have begun at some point, everything has to come from something, it can't have just been there forever, something must have been there before it

Eternal God = fine

The fact that the universe is in the process of expanding is evidence that it had a starting point, otherwise it would remain constant.

God on the other hand remains constant

Malachi 3:6
6 For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

You're using an incredibly unreliable source that includes talking snakes, talking donkey's, talking bushes that are on fire, and a story about an ark that could not have existed.

Scientists have hypothesized that the universe may have always existed. Meaning that the Universe has an infinite age, rather than just over 13 billion years. It's certainly not impossible, and more likely than the biblical explanation at the very least. There's several other possibilities. The truth is we won't have an answer in our lifetimes. At least not a concrete answer. If you just want AN answer, then there's several to choose from.

(October 24, 2015 at 2:53 pm)Cecelia Wrote: You're using an incredibly unreliable source that includes talking snakes, talking donkey's, talking bushes that are on fire, and a story about an ark that could not have existed.

Scientists have hypothesized that the universe may have always existed.  Meaning that the Universe has an infinite age, rather than just over 13 billion years.  It's certainly not impossible, and more likely than the biblical explanation at the very least.  There's several other possibilities.  The truth is we won't have an answer in our lifetimes.  At least not a concrete answer.  If you just want AN answer, then there's several to choose from.

A hypothesis is based off of evidence, which is why it is called an "educated" guess, as opposed to just a "guess". Upon what evidence is an "eternal" universe based?

And for the record, there were no talking snakes in the Bible.

(October 24, 2015 at 3:11 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 24, 2015 at 2:53 pm)Cecelia Wrote: You're using an incredibly unreliable source that includes talking snakes, talking donkey's, talking bushes that are on fire, and a story about an ark that could not have existed.

Scientists have hypothesized that the universe may have always existed.  Meaning that the Universe has an infinite age, rather than just over 13 billion years.  It's certainly not impossible, and more likely than the biblical explanation at the very least.  There's several other possibilities.  The truth is we won't have an answer in our lifetimes.  At least not a concrete answer.  If you just want AN answer, then there's several to choose from.

A hypothesis is based off of evidence, which is why it is called an "educated" guess, as opposed to just a "guess". Upon what evidence is an "eternal" universe based?

And for the record, there were no talking snakes in the Bible.

I'm just wondering how many others are going to beat me to the punch, answering this one. (Maybe none, since I see it's 18 minutes since he posted this... sorry I've been busy in the real world, temporarily.)

Let's see... where in the Bible might I find proof to the contrary?

The Bible in Genesis chapter three Wrote:1. Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, [...]


4 The serpent said to the woman, [...]

13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” 
14 The Lord God said to the serpent,

“Because you have done this,
Cursed are you more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you will go,
And dust you will eat
All the days of your life;
15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel.”

Now, before you tell me I'm a confused atheist, I already know that your doctrine is likely like mine growing up, believing that "the Serpent" was actually Satan Himself, and not a real snake, and that "serpent" is a reference to The Dragon, Satan, a connection from Genesis to the claims in Revelation.

If that is the case, though, it begs the question of why God felt the need to tell snakes they could crawl on their bellies, be cursed more than cows and "every beast of the field".

Now go ahead and tell me that I "just don't understand any of this", or somesuch.

(October 24, 2015 at 3:11 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 24, 2015 at 2:53 pm)Cecelia Wrote: You're using an incredibly unreliable source that includes talking snakes, talking donkey's, talking bushes that are on fire, and a story about an ark that could not have existed.

Scientists have hypothesized that the universe may have always existed.  Meaning that the Universe has an infinite age, rather than just over 13 billion years.  It's certainly not impossible, and more likely than the biblical explanation at the very least.  There's several other possibilities.  The truth is we won't have an answer in our lifetimes.  At least not a concrete answer.  If you just want AN answer, then there's several to choose from.

A hypothesis is based off of evidence, which is why it is called an "educated" guess, as opposed to just a "guess". Upon what evidence is an "eternal" universe based?

And for the record, there were no talking snakes in the Bible.

Lel look at you use logic it's a simple mistake you know serpent and such talking animals.
Anyways a being such as god always existing is a paradox and said being could never exist.

(October 24, 2015 at 3:40 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Now go ahead and tell me that I "just don't understand any of this", or somesuch.  

A serpent is not a snake. In fact, it's probably a bird.

(October 24, 2015 at 4:02 pm)houseofcantor Wrote: A serpent is not a snake. In fact, it's probably a bird.

You mean like a bat?

(October 24, 2015 at 3:40 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(October 24, 2015 at 3:11 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: A hypothesis is based off of evidence, which is why it is called an "educated" guess, as opposed to just a "guess". Upon what evidence is an "eternal" universe based?

And for the record, there were no talking snakes in the Bible.

I'm just wondering how many others are going to beat me to the punch, answering this one. (Maybe none, since I see it's 18 minutes since he posted this... sorry I've been busy in the real world, temporarily.)

Let's see... where in the Bible might I find proof to the contrary?

The Bible in Genesis chapter three Wrote:1. Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, [...]


4 The serpent said to the woman, [...]

13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” 
14 The Lord God said to the serpent,

“Because you have done this,
Cursed are you more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you will go,
And dust you will eat
All the days of your life;
15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel.”

Now, before you tell me I'm a confused atheist, I already know that your doctrine is likely like mine growing up, believing that "the Serpent" was actually Satan Himself, and not a real snake, and that "serpent" is a reference to The Dragon, Satan, a connection from Genesis to the claims in Revelation.

If that is the case, though, it begs the question of why God felt the need to tell snakes they could crawl on their bellies, be cursed more than cows and "every beast of the field".

Now go ahead and tell me that I "just don't understand any of this", or somesuch.  

That's it exactly, why is the serpent made to crawl on it's belly as punishment, if it is already on it belly? Makes no sense. Also I can probably say with some certainty, that your doctrine growing up and mine concerning what happened in the garden of Eden are quite different.

Literal Fruit had nothing to do with original sin.

(October 24, 2015 at 5:21 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: That's it exactly, why is the serpent made to crawl on it's belly as punishment, if it is already on it belly? Makes no sense. Also I can probably say with some certainty, that your doctrine growing up and mine concerning what happened in the garden of Eden are quite different.

Literal Fruit had nothing to do with original sin.

As a way of explaining why snakes appear to be the only creatures on earth who don't have legs? (Cursed from the Beginning!)

If you learn a bit about the snake/serpant as a religious symbol common to Mediterranean-area and Fertile-Crescent-area religions, you'll see why it made sense for the people hearing the story in Genesis and accept that a literal snake was talking, but as part of a symbology element understood by the intended audience.

It is only confusing to modern minds, who grew up without inherently understanding that symbolic link, since we were raised on the folklore of our time, not theirs. But it's easy enough to Google. I won't even try to direct you... just look around.

But this is another example of why we cannot talk about your faith-traditions in a vacuum. They cannot be discussed in isolation because they were not created in isolation, and to limit discussion of a topic like that without reference to any external source is to presume that the religious traditions and verses were created in isolation, to be discussed only in that context. They were not, as even a cursory examination of Biblical history reveals. 

So to ask us to only consider your religion in isolation, on your terms, is to ignore what we know of your religion. Not trivial things, but the entire premise by which your sort of religion comes-to-be; the questions of comparative ideas when discussing the construction and origin of the theological concepts that underly your faith are as "core" as human language can be.

Edit to Add: By the way, the fact that our faith-traditions were so different underscores my earlier statements about what you consider non-peripheral issues, versus understanding the core of a faith. There is much more under strongly-contested views within the church than there are things considered peripheral and unimportant.

(October 24, 2015 at 1:05 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Time is relative....

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Would you care to say something, you know, relevant? Because time can be relative, but what it can't be, is non-existent in a setting where distinct events occur in an order.

Quote:No, that math is according to science...

Matter can be formed from energy correct? If God IS light that would mean that he IS energy (i'm over simplifying here, I don't presume to know what God is made of... but we do know that light is created by energy)

This means it is entirely within the boundaries of science, for an entity of pure energy to create matter.

... What was my overarching point, about things needing to be possible before they are within the boundaries of science? I don't care, in the least, how you spin the bible to match up with what you think science is, until you can get that spin to connect up with a demonstrably possible phenomena, which would only be step one of getting your idea some scientific credibility, and you're not even doing that now. All you're doing is changing the impossible claim you're making, adding new stipulations without going back to deal with that necessary first condition: whether you want your god to be an energy being or not, doesn't change the fact that you haven't demonstrated that it's possible for there to be one of those. Conscious energy? Haven't demonstrated that! Energy capable of creating universes? Haven't demonstrated that! All of this being your specific christian god, with its specific edicts and opinions? Haven't demonstrated that!

This is the problem with you puffed up christian science prevaricators, you want to skip all the hard work of science in favor of piggybacking on whatever little shreds of the work of real scientists you can bother to understand for the credibility alone. You don't care about truth, you care about twisting science to fit your insipid little religion, and the proof of that is how easy you find it to ignore all the necessary steps, the basic understanding of not only how science works, but how basic epistemology works, in order to reach your preferred conclusion.

Possible before considered. Considered before probable. Probable before science. You're not even playing the game, you're just trying to jam "consistent with," somewhere in that simple calculus, as though "my magic thing would totally work there because it does magic," is the same as "my magic thing is most probably true based on X, Y, and Z observations and experimental data."

Quote:*emphasis mine*
You would seem to agree with the bible

John
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not

Here it is stating the God WAS the singularity in the beginning in which all things existed.

Are you stupid? Serious question: are you an idiot?

Because you seem to have real trouble with the idea that impossible things cannot be true, and that makes me think that you're an idiot. The fact that you keep preaching to me, like "it says so in a book," is going to convince me of anything, kinda confirms it. The fact that you also think you can slip in your specific christian god, a mind with opinions and a weird dumb personal history, in with what we've already established to be a singularity of matter and energy, seemingly expecting me to just ignore all the other related claims of your religion and just go with the one claim you've managed to awkwardly shoehorn into the science you don't understand, is just the icing on the cake.

So, I mean, you can either admit that you're an idiot, or you can admit that you have a hell of a lot of work to do here even if I happened to accept your self serving spin game here. Which is it, Huggy? Is your argument stupid, or wildly incomplete?