But again, I don't assume. It does. Not so subtle difference. You have evidence that my coffee maker will start working tomorrow (I'd be very interested if you did, since it stopped working this morning)? I'm going to push the button in the morning, just to see if it works, like I did at noon today.

---

This is the part where I ask you why you feel that your verse gives you a reason to assume that the laws of physics will remain the same. I see a deity promising rain and sunshine for crops (admirable) but in no way promising that he will provide those things in the same manner for all eternity. In fact, I propose that such a deity could just will the plants to grow, and make the world visible, without light. I see no direct or implied promise of the mechanism of such things...so, wheres your justification, exactly, a different chapter and verse perhaps?

Also, your flood evidence?

(September 6, 2011 at 7:19 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Then the Christian theist should have no issue discarding parts of his text that are clearly in contradiction to [God's] predictable and uniform creation as the misinterpretations of man. Things like biblical cosmology, global floods, exodus accounts, etc.

I am with you on biblical cosmology and the global flood being (badly) misinterpreted by young-earth creationists, although I think it might be overly generous to say they "misinterpreted" it because that implies they engaged in something that could even qualify as interpretation (wrong as it may be), but I have to call you out on the exodus from Egypt. There is a debate/discussion pending on that issue between myself and another forum member who likewise thinks it never happened. You will want to watch for that one, because the evidence supporting that event is fairly compelling.

(September 6, 2011 at 9:28 pm)Rhythm Wrote: In fact, I propose that [God] could just will the plants to grow and make the world visible without light. I see no direct or implied promise of the mechanism of such things. So where's your justification, exactly? A different chapter and verse, perhaps?

There is a rather important difference between what God could do and what he does do; that is to say, just because he could do a thing it does not follow that he has done that thing. As Tertullian once noted, "Certainly nothing is difficult for God. But if in our assumptions we so rashly make use of this judgment, we shall be able to invent any manner of thing concerning God, as that he has done it, on the ground that he was able to do it."

As for the "direct or implied promise of the mechanism" upon which we are assured the uniformity of nature, consider God's assurance to the people of Israel: "But I, the LORD, make the following promise: I have made a covenant governing the coming of day and night. I have established the fixed laws governing heaven and earth. Just as surely as I have done this, so surely will I never reject the descendants of Jacob. Nor will I ever refuse to choose one of my servant David's descendants to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Indeed, I will restore them and show mercy to them" (Jer 33:25-26).

A much better verse there. Figured you'd make it in here eventually. A bit ambiguous, but it's passable isn't it.

There's an argument for Exodus that overcomes the lack of physical evidence, corraboration from outside sources, linguistic continuity (Hebrew is part of the Canaanite branch of the Semitic family of languages), cultural continuity (pottery and other technology), and genetic continuity (as per recent DNA research)? And of course provides evidence for the many miracles in the narrative? That would be pretty compelling.

Link?

Since it is a pending debate I am not inclined to show my hand, as it were, prior to said debate. You (and others) are likely to enjoy it when it happens, though—especially since the argument I will be defending is original; that is to say, it is not among the existing theories (e.g., the Hyksos).

Don't stop on my account. I'm the person. I don't have time to finish prepping for the debate between work, school, outside projects, the gym, and modding here.

You know me, Summer: I'm patient. There's no rush on this.

Except when you give me hell about it. [pouts]

---

Why the fuck am I awake?

---

Nevermind, dropping back out of the Land of the Conscious.

Ryft, continuing on from your verse, and assuming that Jeremiah was written sometime in the 6th century BC, what do you imagine those laws that the verse is describing are?

I understand that interpreting verses such as Jer 33:25 today, and specifically from a point of strong faith (and an apparent need to make it reasonable) as somehow related to our current understanding of the cosmos is a common thread in apologetics. However, the verse you've quoted is literally drawing authority, (and giving assurance) from laws which we now understand to be incorrect. It's akin to saying "I who have created the earth as an island amidst the waters, under the firmament which I have left openings in to provide light, have made this promise". If you wanted to take a look at the cosmology and science that we find reference to in the OT you may want to have a look at the link below. Jeremiah specifically would have had access to this information as he is said to have lived in the zenith of Chaldean science. Before and during Babylonian occupation, and of course he was an educated man (from a land-owning family), a priest, or prophetic minister of some sort. It would be difficult to translate the influence of Babylonian (and especially Chaldean) science out of the OT, as it is leveraged in just about any statement of material knowledge in the text. It was the best science of the time, and obviously known the authors. If you were to argue that Jeremiah had no laws in mind it becomes an empty statement, and an empty promise.

I understand that you have interpreted this in some general sort of way that would appear to be in concordance (or at least not contradictory) with the physics and cosmology of today, but it clearly would not, and could not have been. I'm of the opinion that this amounts to little more than quote mining.

http://www.astro.uu.nl/~vgent/babylon/babybibl.htm

(September 6, 2011 at 8:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(September 6, 2011 at 8:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Oh, there's evidence to deny? Lets see it so I can get on with unrighteously denying it.

The fossil record.

I happen to live near the south downs which are hills made of chalk, you know what that is right?
its the tiny skeletons of billions upon billions of tiny creatures that sank to the bottom of a sea over millions of years.

http://www.southdowns.gov.uk/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk

---

(September 6, 2011 at 7:06 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Sure we know the process, but you have no justification for your belief that the process will continue into the future, that's the point.

The physical laws are used because they work. If they suddenly stopped working then that would be interesting and the laws would need revision.
They are only descriptions of the physical world and are only as good as the predictions they make.

As is the god concept which has time and time again made wrong predictions and stated missinformation as fact.

520/harold-camping-doomsday-may-21-21st-2011-end-of-the-world-apocalypse-earthquake-rupture-atheists-bib.htm

http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/geocentric.shtml