JIA, I'm not going to argue with you anymore. I think you're wrong, about what Stephen Hawking knows pertaining to the scientifically studied origins of the universe, pertaining to the laws of physics. As the particle physicist who was able to ascertain Black Hole Evaporation, there's no way he wouldn't have every physical law known to science in mind when making a statement.
Verse 20:For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible
Yes, through science, something you're ignoring here.
in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So we are without excuse,
That can extend to all facets of science, M Theory, Particle Physics, 11 dimensional hyperspace AKA The Multiverse. You can't just ignore science, or be scientifically illiterate and claim there is scientific proof of the Christian God based on a rudimentary understanding of the cosmological constant or a very mundane comprehension of thermodynamics because you misinterpret a verse where the Bible says the earth is a flat circle (Chug) and the heavens (you made the night sky reference, not me) are spread out like a curtain.
You're not a particle physicist, this is woo woo. I'm a Christian, but I choose to do science, in the only practical way I can, regardless.
When Stephen Hawking writes:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."
In his book, he is making a falsifiable statement. If I wanted to disprove him like you're trying to, I would have to - through the scientific process - replace his hypothesis with my own, and validate mine through experimentation: Something which you aren't doing.
When Paul writes:
"'For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made.
So you are without excuse...'"
In the book of Romans, he's making an unfalsifiable statement. Meaning, it can't be proven wrong. Any unfalsifiable statement is a branch of pseudoscience, and is therefore not science. As a scientist, I must accept to not let faith interfere with learned material when going through the scientific process. Everything is under scientific scrutiny, I cannot let my faith be apart of that. You shouldn't let your faith be apart of that.
Originally posted by Dolos
When Paul writes:"'For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made.
So you are without excuse...'"In the book of Romans, he's making an unfalsifiable statement.
A God that is "intelligible" and "discernible" is a God that is falsifiable. In this case, the lack of evidence would be taken as (albeit weak) evidence against the hypothesis Paul is putting forward, but still, were Paul's hypothesis true, it could be demonstrated.
What Paul has a problem with is poorly defined variables (ie: what is it exactly we are calling God's eternal power), and there are ways that they could be defined that would render the hypothesis unfalsifiable, but in general, unfalsifiable is more about a situation where you could run an experiment and the result would be the same regardless of whether or not the hypothesis were true. This is more true of Gods that don't interact with the universe in "intelligible" or "discernible" ways.
Originally posted by Dolos
JIA, I'm not going to argue with you anymore. I think you're wrong, about what Stephen Hawking knows pertaining to the scientifically studied origins of the universe, pertaining to the laws of physics. As the particle physicist who was able to ascertain Black Hole Evaporation, there's no way he wouldn't have every physical law known to science in mind when making a statement.Yes, through science, something you're ignoring here.
That can extend to all facets of science, M Theory, Particle Physics, 11 dimensional hyperspace AKA The Multiverse. You can't just ignore science, or be scientifically illiterate and claim there is scientific proof of the Christian God based on a rudimentary understanding of the cosmological constant or a very mundane comprehension of thermodynamics because you misinterpret a verse where the Bible says the earth is a flat circle (Chug) and the heavens (you made the night sky reference, not me) are spread out like a curtain.
You're not a particle physicist, this is woo woo. I'm a Christian, but I choose to do science, in the only practical way I can, regardless.
Well, you're entitled to your sentiments.
In your own words,
I think you're wrong, about what Stephen Hawking knows pertaining to the scientifically studied origins of the universe, pertaining to the laws of physics.
You think I'm wrong?
So you believe that the universe created itself spontaneously?
The universe created itself.
This is what you truly believe?
Do you understand the implications of what you believe?
With all due respect you call yourself a Christian, and what you believe runs 180 degrees in the other direction from what Genesis 1:1 states,
Genesis 1:1
1 In the beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned, and) created the heavens and the earth.
The Bible reveals that God did it.
You believe that it created itself.
As a self-proclaimed Christian do you not see a problem with what you believe?
When science contradicts the Bible, as a Christian, you should side with the Bible.
Science is a tool. It should help not harm.
The moment that science undermines your faith in what God says, you should go with God.
Do you follow what I'm saying?
Science and the Bible can, should, and do complement one another.
It's only when science doesn't jibe or square with the Word of God that you--and every other believer--should make a stand against it.
The Bible states that we walk by faith not by sight.
That means that we believe what we cannot see, and take as true what we do not understand as it relates to the Bible.
Your allegiance to atheistic Stephen Hawking's theories is unsettling, and very disturbing.
I don't know how you can call yourself a Christian after denying the veracity of the very first verse in the Bible.
Genesis 1:1 destroys the entire atheistic community's world, and yet you choose to side with them.
To deny Genesis 1:1 is to deny God Himself.
You might want to do some self-introspection to find out whether you are truly in the faith.
You believe that matter, energy, the laws of nature and everything that derived from that (order, the precise, anthropically favorable cosmological constant, the mind, conscience, rationality, mathematics, physics, science, DNA, living cells, photosynthesis, reason, intelligence, life, the human brain, complex organisms, the laws of thermodynamics, language, unique fingerprints, beautifully arranged/fragrant flowers, lakes, streams, trees, animals, wildlife, snow-capped mountains, fundamental forces, the unique atmosphere around earth, human emotion, the ability to think, love, express compassion, mercy, goodwill, kindness, worship, study, learn, laugh, play, sing, paint, draw, choose, eat, grow, see, hear, sleep, all of this complexity, and design)
came into existence by a universe that created itself?
Dolos, if the universe can create itself then it must have a will right?
If the universe has a will then it must be personal right?
If the universe is personal then it is rational right?
If the universe is rational then it is intelligent right?
If the universe is intelligent then it can reason right?
If the universe can create itself then it must be supernatural right?
If the universe is supernatural and can create itself then it must be all-powerful right?
If the universe is all-powerful then it can do whatever it wants right?
So why did the self-creating universe choose to be ordered, display design, and be so geared towards sustaining life?
The self-creating universe appears loving, concerned, kind, benevolent, altruistic, selfless, parent-like, and good.
In fact, this self-creating universe sounds more like an all-powerful, all-wise, deity than an impersonal paradox.
No, not necessarily through science. I don't know that that is what God meant when He inspired the apostle Paul to write Romans 1:20.
I believe that this planet--and everything in it--is abundant evidence of God's existence.
The verse says ever since the creation of the world--not ever since the creation of science--His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks).
Romans 1:20
20 For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks).
So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification],
Furthermore, the Bible reveals that people are without excuse.
Atheists are without excuse.
The atheistic, scientific community is without excuse.
Academia is without excuse.
Originally posted by Dolos
When Stephen Hawking writes:"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."
In his book, he is making a falsifiable statement. If I wanted to disprove him like you're trying to, I would have to - through the scientific process - replace his hypothesis with my own, and validate mine through experimentation: Something which you aren't doing.
When Paul writes:
"'For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made.
So you are without excuse...'"In the book of Romans, he's making an unfalsifiable statement. Meaning, it can't be proven wrong. Any unfalsifiable statement is a branch of pseudoscience, and is therefore [b]not
science. As a scientist, I must accept to not let faith interfere with learned material when going through the scientific process. Everything is under scientific scrutiny, I cannot let my faith be apart of that. You shouldn't let your faith be apart of that. [/B]
What the apostle Paul wrote about is so obvious that it doesn't need to be proven using the scientific process.
The reason Romans 1:20 cannot be disproven is because it is the Word of God, the Word of Truth.
I believe that faith and science are mutually compatible. You just have to have wisdom to know where to draw the line.
Faith and science were intended to work together.
I believe that science confirms many Bible truths.
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14471905#post14471905
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=533188&pagenumber=129#post14471552
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=533188&pagenumber=128#post14470535
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=448058&pagenumber=428#post14470015
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=448058&pagenumber=428#post14470540
Originally posted by Oliver North
A God that is "intelligible" and "discernible" is a God that is falsifiable. In this case, the lack of evidence would be taken as (albeit weak) evidence against the hypothesis Paul is putting forward, but still, were Paul's hypothesis true, it could be demonstrated.
Hmmm
Paul said "if I have no love, I'm nothing", he also states that love superseeds faith. To have love, you need to communicate and to understand with each other, I'd go further, you need to communiate with each other.
Science is a language, is a means of mutual understanding and communication, it can serve to love, which is a higher order of magnitude than to simply have faith. Does that means science gets to superseed faith? Of course not, they don't work on the same level to begin with. But to say that you always choose faith over science is essentially stating that science cannot lead to love. It's quite an statement.
Originally posted by Bentley
Paul said "if I have no love, I'm nothing", he also states that love superseeds faith. To have love, you need to communicate and to understand with each other, I'd go further, you need to communiate with each other.Science is a language, is a means of mutual understanding and communication, it can serve to love, which is a higher order of magnitude than to simply have faith. Does that means science gets to superseed faith? Of course not, they don't work on the same level to begin with. But to say that you always choose faith over science is essentially stating that science cannot lead to love. It's quite an statement.
Originally posted by Dolos
Hmmm
Think of it like this:
"God answers all prayers" is a falsifiable statement. If God is answering them, we should be able to see it, but it might be that we don't necessarily understand what we are looking for in all cases.
"God answers all prayers, but sometimes says no" is an unfalsifiable statement. If we can't know whether God is or is not answering a prayer in a detectable manner (ie: God says "no"😉, we would expect to see the same results whether the statement is true or not.
So when Paul is explicitly stating that God is discernible to those who look (in fact, he implies God's majesty is essentially obvious), it means you can actually go look, and if you do not discern God, you have falsified the hypothesis. It may mean we just don't know how or what to discern, but that caveat is the same with any falsifiable hypothesis in any scientific field. Or, of course, adding something like "... but sometimes God doesn't want to be discerned" would make the statement entirely unfalsifiable.
Can I just say, getting Dolos and JIA together is maybe the best thing this thread has ever accomplished. I'm just tickled at that exchange.
Originally posted by Oliver North
Think of it like this:"God answers all prayers" is a falsifiable statement. If God is answering them, we should be able to see it, but it might be that we don't necessarily understand what we are looking for in all cases.
"God answers all prayers, but sometimes says no" is an unfalsifiable statement. If we can't know whether God is or is not answering a prayer in a detectable manner (ie: God says "no"😉, we would expect to see the same results whether the statement is true or not.
So when Paul is explicitly stating that God is discernible to those who look (in fact, he implies God's majesty is essentially obvious), it means you can actually go look, and if you do not discern God, you have falsified the hypothesis. It may mean we just don't know how or what to discern, but that caveat is the same with any falsifiable hypothesis in any scientific field. Or, of course, adding something like "... but sometimes God doesn't want to be discerned" would make the statement entirely unfalsifiable.
What part of "Mysterious ways..." don't you get?! Sheesh, it's not a hard concept.
😉
Originally posted by Digi
Can I just say, getting Dolos and JIA together is maybe the best thing this thread has ever accomplished. I'm just tickled at that exchange.
I think it's hilarious that you glibly classify yourself above us as an intellectual elite, such a callous remark would suggest nothing besides.
That's one thing I can't stand. Maybe women think being crass or arrogant is bad, cliques and organized elitism are thousands of times worse. Be careful, elitism was how Nazism, Social Darwinism and Philippine-Insurrection Imperialism came about. Jesus was a political cynic as well as a Messiah, he aided the oppressed, helped the poor.
Originally posted by Dolos
I think it's hilarious that you glibly classify yourself above us as an intellectual elite, such a callous remark would suggest nothing besides.That's one thing I can't stand. Maybe women think being crass or arrogant is bad, cliques and organized elitism are thousands of times worse. Be careful, elitism was how Nazism, Social Darwinism and Philippine-Insurrection Imperialism came about. Jesus was a political cynic as well as a Messiah, he aided the oppressed, helped the poor.
It was more the opposing styles of rationale. I don't get to see it often. I'm indifferent to what you think of my comment, but it wasn't intentionally derogatory...at least not toward you (JIA, well, maybe a little...no one's perfect). I disagree with you on a lot, but your pursuit of this stuff is admirable. Talking it out with people on the internet is how I refined many of my own beliefs, so I do think I should go out of my way to say I don't consider myself above you. JIA's just trying to preach, though, which I have less respect for. I enjoy seeing a new permutation to the debates we have, even if I can't endorse either side.
And if I come across as a d*ck, it's because sometimes I am, and I've been on KMC long enough, with many of the same people, that half of what I do is for amusement as opposed to promoting actual discourse. It's never intended personally, at least unless I'm very specific about it being personal.
srug
Originally posted by Dolos
I digress, perhaps I was overreacting.
Given the context, you were right to say something. Maybe not in making the connection to Nazis, but at least in general. You have my apologies.
Originally posted by Bentley
You weren't actually, is just one of those (thankfully) scarce Digi jerk moments.Seriously, push the guy a bit and he becomes super saiyan.
Originally posted by DolosYour plethora of rambles all suggest that becoming an intellectual elite (and openly declaring yourself as such) is a life goal for you.
I think it's hilarious that you glibly classify yourself above us as an intellectual elite, such a callous remark would suggest nothing besides.
A telos, if you will. *hoight hoight ho ho*
