(April 27, 2017 at 6:27 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Math you moron! Speed of light, red shift, cosmic microwave background radiation. ...well let me dumb it down for you, the big bang is no fucking different than coming across a car someone just parked walked away, you don't see them but you feel the heat of the hood. CLUES you fucking idiot. No different than coming across a murder scene way after the murder has left. MATH tells us everything about the age of our planet, the age of our sun, the age of our galaxy and the age of our universe. Just like taking a tape measure and working backwards with it. 

(April 27, 2017 at 7:35 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(April 27, 2017 at 6:27 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Math you moron! Speed of light, red shift, cosmic microwave background radiation. ...well let me dumb it down for you, the big bang is no fucking different than coming across a car someone just parked walked away, you don't see them but you feel the heat of the hood. CLUES you fucking idiot. No different than coming across a murder scene way after the murder has left. MATH tells us everything about the age of our planet, the age of our sun, the age of our galaxy and the age of our universe. Just like taking a tape measure and working backwards with it. 

That is the SECOND TIME you posted that meme, and I posted SEVERAL links to articles of OTHER religions pointing to science too. 

EVERYONE of ALL religions when they cant peddle their writings flat out, either try to debunk science, and when they cant do that try to claim science points to their club. EVERYONE does it!

There is no Catholic theory of gravity.
There is no Jewish theory of evolution.
There is no Hindu entropy.
There is no Buddhist law of thermodynamics.

Humans make discoveries? NO SHIT, now would you like me to post video of primates using tools?

"What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian"

They spatter well when pushed into a spinning propeller.

---

---

(April 27, 2017 at 3:43 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(April 27, 2017 at 3:06 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: If you're going to use nonstandard definitions, you might as well not say anything.

om·nis·cience

/ämˈniSH(ə)ns,ämˈnisēəns/

noun

noun: omniscience

the state of knowing everything.

I like mine better--it defines 'knowing everything' more precisely. Mine also avoids logical contradiction that your simplistic one does not.

You do know that there are books written the subject that you think you can define in 5 words. Don't you think there might be a little more to tease out?

So then tell us, Steve: How should one navigate through a discussion (with any intellectual honesty, that is) regarding the most accurate definition, and truest description of the nature of such a hypothetical attribute, when the only hypothetical being it has ever been ascribed to can't be demonstrated to exist in the first place?

Maybe afterwords we can have a hearty debate over the exact mechanisms behind Earth's yellow sun making Superman more powerful than a locomotive, eh?

(April 27, 2017 at 7:42 pm)Brian37 Wrote: That is the SECOND TIME you posted that meme,...

That's rich...YOU criticising ME for being repetitive. Clown.

(April 27, 2017 at 2:06 pm)Harry Nevis Wrote:

(April 27, 2017 at 12:50 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Just to nitpick (because why the hell not), the universe and the cosmos are not the same thing.

It can be, if you only believe...

---

(April 27, 2017 at 12:59 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Anyway...what the hell is supposed to be the difference between 'causally active' and 'physically present'?  I mean, for fuck's sake, Steve...

Like your sig, Lady.  I'm going to a Tom Waits tribute concert tonight.  Hopefully, someone will cover, "Christmas card From A Hooker in Minneapolis".

Oh, Thank you, Harry! That sounds like a lot of fun; I hope they can do his voice justice!

Fucking FANTASTIC song, btw. [emoji41]. Sometimes I think 70's Tom Waits is my favorite Tom Waits, until I listen to Raindogs, that is. [emoji16]

Quote:That's rich...YOU criticising ME for being repetitive. Clown.

except the clear difference

That brain has to keep repeating it because you "Clowns " keep dodging the question . And you posting the same stupid easily refuted meme over and over . So yeah he gets to criticize you .

(April 27, 2017 at 9:09 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(April 27, 2017 at 3:43 pm)SteveII Wrote: I like mine better--it defines 'knowing everything' more precisely. Mine also avoids logical contradiction that your simplistic one does not.

You do know that there are books written the subject that you think you can define in 5 words. Don't you think there might be a little more to tease out?

So then tell us, Steve:  How should one navigate through a discussion (with any intellectual honesty, that is) regarding the most accurate definition, and truest description of the nature of such a hypothetical attribute, when the only hypothetical being it has ever been ascribed to can't be demonstrated to exist in the first place?

Maybe afterwords we can have a hearty debate over the exact mechanisms behind Earth's yellow sun making Superman more powerful than a locomotive, eh?  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ah, the favorite fallback position when an atheist can't field a rebuttal: "but...but...you can't prove that what we have been talking about for 518 posts really exists...so...so...I win...so there!

---

(April 27, 2017 at 5:07 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(April 27, 2017 at 3:06 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: If you're going to use nonstandard definitions, you might as well not say anything.

om·nis·cience

/ämˈniSH(ə)ns,ämˈnisēəns/

noun

noun: omniscience

the state of knowing everything.

I would agree here.  Omni present, and omniscience have different meanings. And the meaning Steve gave is not typical nor orthodox for the meaning of Omni present.

I know it is not typical. However if someone had not stripped my whole reply down to that sentence, it makes more sense in context I wrote it. However, I will expound on the concept lest people not see the point of being more precise and nuanced than cutting and pasting the first thing that pops on Google. 
I believe that the omnipresence of God means he is cognizant of and causally active at every point in space (or cosmos if you prefer)--but not actually present as we typically use the term. 
Reasons: 
1. The universe is expanding. If God was everywhere, is God expanding? Or perhaps becoming diluted? 
2. The universe if finite. Does that mean that God is finite?
3. More silly conclusion can be drawn from a too-simplistic view: for example, is a portion of God in my coffee cup and the rest of him outside of it? 
4. The Bible talks regularly about times when God is present and times when he is not. How is that possible if he is always present in the way we normally define it? 
5. Is God present in Hell?