(February 21, 2017 at 12:50 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Therefore when Bible states that God is a spirit, this obviously means that a spirit is not part of this physical universe

It would have to be part of the physical universe if it can interact with the universe.

Quote:because God clearly existed before the universe was created.

Did I miss something? When was this established?

(February 21, 2017 at 8:06 am)KUSA Wrote:

(February 21, 2017 at 12:50 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Therefore when Bible states that God is a spirit, this obviously means that a spirit is not part of this physical universe

It would have to be part of the physical universe if it can interact with the universe.

So the creator must be part of the creation?

(February 21, 2017 at 8:06 am)KUSA Wrote: Did I miss something? When was this established?

Around the same time spirits were.

(February 21, 2017 at 8:40 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 21, 2017 at 8:06 am)KUSA Wrote: It would have to be part of the physical universe if it can interact with the universe.

So the creator must be part of the creation?

Yes. He must inescapably be a part to which his creation also belong. Otherwise he would not be capable of any menipulation required to create it.

(February 21, 2017 at 12:50 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 19, 2017 at 7:28 am)pocaracas Wrote: So tell us, do you think that the bible's description of a spirit is a trustworthy representation of reality?
If yes, then what makes you think so? Why do you accept it as representative of reality?

How, do you imagine, the people who wrote the bible came across that description?
Could any of us come across it, too, if we had never heard of the bible nor of its contents?

Well, I already provided you with one concept already, which was the relativity of time. The bible clearly states that time is relative, and that concept is something we can trust because it's correct.

You know?... it's the first time I ever hear anyone say that the bible states that time is relative.
How does it state the relativity of time?
How does that compare with the Theory of Relativity developed by Einstein?

(February 21, 2017 at 12:50 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Another concept is original seed. In the beginning every seed God originally created he gave the ability to reproduce after it's kind, hybridization/genetically modification removes this ability (because it was never part of the original creation) making the seed sterile.

I didn't know you were a creationist...
What do you mean by "In the beginning"?

Some hybridization and genetic modifications retain the reproducibility of the new organism. Actually, genetic modifications are at the core of how evolution works... if any modification would render the individual unfit for producing offspring, then your kids, not being like yourself nor like your wife, wouldn't produce offspring of their own. Clearly, that's not the case.

(February 21, 2017 at 12:50 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Therefore when Bible states that God is a spirit, this obviously means that a spirit is not part of this physical universe because God clearly existed before the universe was created.

Loads of assumptions are going in there...
First: that this "physical universe" is all there is. I can't know it, but it is possible that more universes exist, all physical, too, of course.
Second: the universe was created... again, we cannot know what lies beyond our Universe, but it is conceivable that space and time can stretch beyond it, leading one to conceive that the big bang of our Universe was some event in a potentially infinite space-time framework... to call that a creation, I think, implies that it had a creator... would you say that you create CO2, when something is burning? or would you say that the burning of some organic material, such as wood, generates CO2?... no creator required... So could our Universe have come about through some physical mechanism, possibly yet unknown to us, possibly unknowable.... clearly untestable, as far as I'm aware.
Third: God clearly existed... well, if it was that clear, this forum and many like it wouldn't exist, would they? Do you think we're just actively denying the obvious when we don't acknowledge the existence of that god? How obvious is it, when you need to be taught about it, from childhood, or else, you'll have a hard time believing it?... How obvious is it, when you can be taught something a bit different, just because you were born on some other location of the planet? How obvious is it, when you have to believe?
Fourth: God clearly existed before the Universe - dude, if you're positing that nothing but your god exist if no Universe exists, then there is also no time, no before, no concept of action. I know this is a difficult notion. But do take some time to ponder it. No Universe = no space = no time = the philosophical nothing.... except your god! A god that can do no action for time does not exist to pass... time does not exist for a sequence of events to unfold... time does not exist to create something. I can totally understand that people in centuries past couldn't even conceive of the absence of time, but this is the 21st Century... we now have some grasp on it... you claim to have a decent IQ, use it.

(February 21, 2017 at 9:18 am)pocaracas Wrote: .....you claim to have a decent IQ, use it.

If he needs to claim to have a decent IQ, it's probably because of his inability to actually exhibit it.

(February 21, 2017 at 8:40 am)Huggy74 Wrote: So the creator must be part of the creation?

When a woman has a baby, the woman and the baby are both part of the same physical reality.

Quote:Around the same time spirits were.

Which hasn't happened. Spirits are an idea. You can not give explanation to what they may be.

(February 21, 2017 at 9:18 am)pocaracas Wrote: You know?... it's the first time I ever hear anyone say that the bible states that time is relative.
How does it state the relativity of time?
How does that compare with the Theory of Relativity developed by Einstein?

I said the bible states that time can differ according to point of view, which means it's relative.

Quote: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. - 2 Peter 3:8

(February 21, 2017 at 9:18 am)pocaracas Wrote: I didn't know you were a creationist...
What do you mean by "In the beginning"?

Some hybridization and genetic modifications retain the reproducibility of the new organism. Actually, genetic modifications are at the core of how evolution works... if any modification would render the individual unfit for producing offspring, then your kids, not being like yourself nor like your wife, wouldn't produce offspring of their own. Clearly, that's not the case.

*emphasis mine*

False equivalency

Each seed must produce after it's kind, 'kind' means species, humans belong to the same species.

What you need to do is provide an example is of completely separate species producing fertile offspring.

(February 21, 2017 at 9:18 am)pocaracas Wrote: Loads of assumptions are going in there...
First: that this "physical universe" is all there is. I can't know it, but it is possible that more universes exist, all physical, too, of course.

*emphasis mine*
So you counter my assumption with assumptions?

Using that logic, it is also entirely possible that a universe exists that is undetectable to your natural senses also, correct?

(February 21, 2017 at 9:18 am)pocaracas Wrote: Second: the universe was created... again, we cannot know what lies beyond our Universe, but it is conceivable that space and time can stretch beyond it, leading one to conceive that the big bang of our Universe was some event in a potentially infinite space-time framework... to call that a creation, I think, implies that it had a creator... would you say that you create CO2, when something is burning? or would you say that the burning of some organic material, such as wood, generates CO2?... no creator required... So could our Universe have come about through some physical mechanism, possibly yet unknown to us, possibly unknowable.... clearly untestable, as far as I'm aware.

Again, more assumptions.

(February 21, 2017 at 9:18 am)pocaracas Wrote: Third: God clearly existed... well, if it was that clear, this forum and many like it wouldn't exist, would they? Do you think we're just actively denying the obvious when we don't acknowledge the existence of that god? How obvious is it, when you need to be taught about it, from childhood, or else, you'll have a hard time believing it?... How obvious is it, when you can be taught something a bit different, just because you were born on some other location of the planet? How obvious is it, when you have to believe?

You asked me specifically about the Bible, and my answer was in relation to that.

The point is if a spirit has ALWAYS been defined as being incorporeal, you cannot turn around and claim that spirits don't exist because you can't detect any "substance"...

(February 21, 2017 at 9:18 am)pocaracas Wrote: Fourth: God clearly existed before the Universe - dude, if you're positing that nothing but your god exist if no Universe exists, then there is also no time, no before, no concept of action. I know this is a difficult notion. But do take some time to ponder it. No Universe = no space = no time = the philosophical nothing.... except your god! A god that can do no action for time does not exist to pass... time does not exist for a sequence of events to unfold... time does not exist to create something. I can totally understand that people in centuries past couldn't even conceive of the absence of time, but this is the 21st Century... we now have some grasp on it... you claim to have a decent IQ, use it.

*emphasis mine*
EXACTLY! God is Eternal, time doesn't exist.

This goes back to time being relative doesn't it?

Answer this, say it takes light 100 million light years to travel between two points, if you were a photon how long would it take YOU?

---

(February 21, 2017 at 10:18 am)KUSA Wrote:

(February 21, 2017 at 8:40 am)Huggy74 Wrote: So the creator must be part of the creation?

When a woman has a baby, the woman and the baby are both part of the same physical reality.

Another false equivalency, can a woman create a baby by speaking? If not, then how is it the same thing?

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. - Hebrews 11:3

(February 21, 2017 at 8:06 am)KUSA Wrote: It would have to be part of the physical universe if it can interact with the universe.

That is a logical fallacy - an argument from ignorance. Just because you cannot imagine how physical and non-physical things interact that doesn't me that they cannot.

(February 21, 2017 at 10:53 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(February 21, 2017 at 8:06 am)KUSA Wrote: It would have to be part of the physical universe if it can interact with the universe.

That is a logical fallacy - an argument from ignorance. Just because you cannot imagine how physical and non-physical things interact that doesn't me that they cannot.

God is a logical fallacy. You cannot explain what this non physical thing even is.

(February 21, 2017 at 10:42 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 21, 2017 at 9:18 am)pocaracas Wrote: You know?... it's the first time I ever hear anyone say that the bible states that time is relative.
How does it state the relativity of time?
How does that compare with the Theory of Relativity developed by Einstein?

I said the bible states that time can differ according to point of view, which means it's relative.

Quote: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. - 2 Peter 3:8

Psychological perception of time and actual relative time are two VERY different things.
You may do well to use different words (or expressions) to refer to the two concepts.
That you have been using the same wording as a shortcut to claim that the bible possesses some knowledge of actual relative time comes across as disingenuous...

(February 21, 2017 at 10:42 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 21, 2017 at 9:18 am)pocaracas Wrote: I didn't know you were a creationist...
What do you mean by "In the beginning"?

Some hybridization and genetic modifications retain the reproducibility of the new organism. Actually, genetic modifications are at the core of how evolution works... if any modification would render the individual unfit for producing offspring, then your kids, not being like yourself nor like your wife, wouldn't produce offspring of their own. Clearly, that's not the case.

*emphasis mine*

False equivalency

Each seed must produce after it's kind, 'kind' means species, humans belong to the same species.

What you need to do is provide an example is of completely separate species producing fertile offspring.

Challenge accepted!
Different species of fruit flies have successfully been produced in the lab, after lots and lots of generations.
Do you need me to google it for you?

Or are you going back to say, like others have before you, that » they're still fruit flies, just a different species of fruit flies, so.... still the same "kind" « ??

(February 21, 2017 at 10:42 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 21, 2017 at 9:18 am)pocaracas Wrote: Loads of assumptions are going in there...
First: that this "physical universe" is all there is. I can't know it, but it is possible that more universes exist, all physical, too, of course.

*emphasis mine*
So you counter my assumption with assumptions?

Using that logic, it is also entirely possible that a universe exists that is undetectable to your natural senses also, correct?

Do note that you believe your assumption to be an accurate representation of reality.
I do not believe mine to be a representation of reality.... I merely accept it as a possibility.

Does this distinction make sense, to you?

(February 21, 2017 at 10:42 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 21, 2017 at 9:18 am)pocaracas Wrote: Second: the universe was created... again, we cannot know what lies beyond our Universe, but it is conceivable that space and time can stretch beyond it, leading one to conceive that the big bang of our Universe was some event in a potentially infinite space-time framework... to call that a creation, I think, implies that it had a creator... would you say that you create CO2, when something is burning? or would you say that the burning of some organic material, such as wood, generates CO2?... no creator required... So could our Universe have come about through some physical mechanism, possibly yet unknown to us, possibly unknowable.... clearly untestable, as far as I'm aware.

Again, more assumptions.

Again, same distinction.
I say A, and B, and C are possibilities that we, given our current knowledge, cannot discard.
You, however, discard every possibility, except your belief. Why?

(February 21, 2017 at 10:42 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 21, 2017 at 9:18 am)pocaracas Wrote: Third: God clearly existed... well, if it was that clear, this forum and many like it wouldn't exist, would they? Do you think we're just actively denying the obvious when we don't acknowledge the existence of that god? How obvious is it, when you need to be taught about it, from childhood, or else, you'll have a hard time believing it?... How obvious is it, when you can be taught something a bit different, just because you were born on some other location of the planet? How obvious is it, when you have to believe?

You asked me specifically about the Bible, and my answer was in relation to that.

The point is if a spirit has ALWAYS been defined as being incorporeal, you cannot turn around and claim that spirits don't exist because you can't detect any "substance"...

No, I didn't ask about the bible...
Here's what I asked:
> "do you think that the bible's description of a spirit is a trustworthy representation of reality?"
> "If yes, then what makes you think so? Why do you accept it as representative of reality?"

Do note that both questions are about you.
They're designed to make you think about why you believe in what you believe.... how you came to believe it... stuff like that.



So, whatever the definition of a spirit is, do you think it agrees with the reality that you see around you?

(February 21, 2017 at 10:42 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 21, 2017 at 9:18 am)pocaracas Wrote: Fourth: God clearly existed before the Universe - dude, if you're positing that nothing but your god exist if no Universe exists, then there is also no time, no before, no concept of action. I know this is a difficult notion. But do take some time to ponder it. No Universe = no space = no time = the philosophical nothing.... except your god! A god that can do no action for time does not exist to pass... time does not exist for a sequence of events to unfold... time does not exist to create something. I can totally understand that people in centuries past couldn't even conceive of the absence of time, but this is the 21st Century... we now have some grasp on it... you claim to have a decent IQ, use it.

*emphasis mine*
EXACTLY! God is Eternal, time doesn't exist.

This goes back to time being relative doesn't it?

Answer this, say it takes light 100 million light years to travel between two points, if you were a photon how long would it take YOU?

Eternal means that it is present at all times.
It doesn't mean that it is present in the absence of time... whatever "present in the absence of time" means.

Trust me, it is way more difficult to wrap your head around this concept than religious philosophers will make you believe.
Try to think about the absence of time. You will most surely think using some internal language... most likely English. Virtually all verbs in English imply the passage of time, so my advice is: avoid them.
"No time" is not "stopped time".
"No time" is not "all time".
"No time" is no action, no entropy, no energy, nothing... and as far as I can see it, unless we posit an illogical exception, no god - no reasoning, no thinking, no creating.

I try to be careful when using words to describe this scenario... but I still fail and have to resort to "whatever X means", because even I fail to wrap my head around the concept...