chyron8472

TV’s Frink said:

dahmage said:

JEDIT: just saw oojason’s comment.

Warb’s the only one going off the deep end atm.

No. And not helping.

I don’t know what to do in here now that my current age was correctly… predicted.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

Also using “it” for a person is seen as derogatory.

God is not a person.

To me he is. Therefore I do not use that pronoun.

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Why does God have to be a “He” anyway?

He doesn’t. Our language doesn’t have a gender-neutral pronoun for a single individual and I’m not sure if the Hebrews and Greeks had one either.

We do.

I did think about that, but the word “they” meaning an individual is not clear in and of itself, but more from context. Historically, God has made it clear He is the “one true God”, and the word “they” might be construed polytheistically.

Also, God is and has been portrayed as a “Father” and I’m sure that was intentional on His part. Plus, Jesus was/is male, and Jesus is considered by many as the physical human incarnation of God.

What if I want to believe God’s a Xe? What do you have to say to that?

I’d say that’s between you and him and that the question is kind of moot.
It’s like me asking you if you’re offended if I call Frink “Steve.”

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Why does God have to be a “He” anyway?

He doesn’t. Our language doesn’t have a gender-neutral pronoun for a single individual and I’m not sure if the Hebrews and Greeks had one either.

We do.

I did think about that, but the word “they” meaning an individual is not clear in and of itself, but more from context. Historically, God has made it clear He is the “one true God”, and the word “they” might be construed polytheistically. Also, God is and has been portrayed as a “Father” and I’m sure that was intentional on His part. Plus, Jesus was/is male, and Jesus is considered by many as the physical human incarnation of God.

But logically, he can take on whatever appearance he wants, or assume any sex/gender he wants. What labels we attach might be more for our benefit than for his.

Also using “it” for a person is seen as derogatory.

TV’s Frink said:

Why does God have to be a “He” anyway?

He doesn’t. Our language doesn’t have a gender-neutral pronoun for a single individual and I’m not sure if the Hebrews and Greeks had one either.

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

There is testimony we can acquire, but that is not irrefutable nor scientific.

…how do you know that?

Are you asking how do I know there is testimony we can acquire? Or as you asking why it wouldn’t be irrefutable or scientific?

Yes, your second question.

Because that’s not how science works. With testimony, there is credibility in question. How credible is the witness? and so forth. By its nature, testimony is subject to unprovable scrutiny (that is, scientific scruity, not court-of-law scrutiny) and is not irrefutable.

To refute testimony scientifically is to use the wrong test. The correct test would be “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in a court or some such.

How would there be testimony at the dawn of the universe? Nobody was alive back then. I don’t understand your point.

Testimony about it. From the dawn of our universe.

I’m not sure if I quite understand what you’re saying, but testimony can obviously be falsifiable. Let’s say I propose that flowers grow from seeds. You could test this testimony to find out if I’m right or wrong. I think the same could be applied to the dawn of the universe.

That’s what I said. That’s why it’s not irrefutable nor scientific to use testimony as scientific data.

I said we can not scientifically prove the impetus or method of creation of the universe, but though there is testimony we can acquire it is not scientific nor irrefutable.

If I’m following correctly, this is the “God of the gaps” argument.

No, it’s more like… The bigger my understanding of the world/universe gets, the bigger God gets. It’s kind of like the Narnia book series, where Lucy remarks to Aslan that he is bigger than before. He responds by saying that she is getting bigger (or older) and so in response he looks bigger to her each time she meets him.

It’s all about perspective. When I look at nature or science, I don’t fill in the gaps of my understanding with “God did it.” I marvel at God’s creation. It’s kind of like looking at a painting and it making you think of the artist who made it. Learning about the universe, about science and art and nature, helps me learn more about God. About who He is and what he’s truly like.

Additionally, I do have personal experiences on which to draw that undeniably to me prove the existence, presence, and intimacy of God. I have had personal encounters with him and have physically felt his presence. I knew it was Him. I can not explain these experiences to you in an irrefutable way. At the end of the day you would have to judge the testimonies of myself and other people involved. Thus my experiences are not scientifically provable, nor intentionally repeatable (even suggesting trying that sounds horribly arrogant to me).

What value is faith if you could prove it?

If I could prove my experiences by replicating them in a controlled environment? If He wanted me to be able to do that, I could do it. But that’s up to Him, not me.

JEDIT: And I’m not sure you’d believe it anyway. Scientific theories are still theories until they’re further disproven. That doesn’t make the conclusions people draw from the current evidence fact.

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

There is testimony we can acquire, but that is not irrefutable nor scientific.

…how do you know that?

Are you asking how do I know there is testimony we can acquire? Or as you asking why it wouldn’t be irrefutable or scientific?

Yes, your second question.

Because that’s not how science works. With testimony, there is credibility in question. How credible is the witness? and so forth. By its nature, testimony is subject to unprovable scrutiny (that is, scientific scruity, not court-of-law scrutiny) and is not irrefutable.

To refute testimony scientifically is to use the wrong test. The correct test would be “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in a court or some such.

How would there be testimony at the dawn of the universe? Nobody was alive back then. I don’t understand your point.

Testimony about it. From the dawn of our universe.

I’m not sure if I quite understand what you’re saying, but testimony can obviously be falsifiable. Let’s say I propose that flowers grow from seeds. You could test this testimony to find out if I’m right or wrong. I think the same could be applied to the dawn of the universe.

That’s what I said. That’s why it’s not irrefutable nor scientific to use testimony as scientific data.

I said we can not scientifically prove the impetus or method of creation of the universe, but though there is testimony we can acquire it is not scientific nor irrefutable.

If I’m following correctly, this is the “God of the gaps” argument.

No, it’s more like… The bigger my understanding of the world/universe gets, the bigger God gets. It’s kind of like the Narnia book series, where Lucy remarks to Aslan that he is bigger than before. He responds by saying that she is getting bigger (or older) and so in response he looks bigger to her each time she meets him.

It’s all about perspective. When I look at nature or science, I don’t fill in the gaps of my understanding with “God did it.” I marvel at God’s creation. It’s kind of like looking at a painting and it making you think of the artist who made it, and what that painting says about them. Learning about the universe, about science and art and nature, helps me learn more about God. About who He is and what he’s truly like.

Additionally, I do have personal experiences on which to draw that undeniably to me prove the existence, presence, and intimacy of God. I have had personal encounters with him and have physically felt his presence. I knew it was Him. I can not explain these experiences to you in an irrefutable way. At the end of the day you would have to judge the testimonies of myself and other people involved. Thus my experiences are not scientifically provable, nor intentionally repeatable (even suggesting trying that sounds horribly arrogant to me).

ZigZig said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

There is testimony we can acquire, but that is not irrefutable nor scientific.

…how do you know that?

Are you asking how do I know there is testimony we can acquire? Or as you asking why it wouldn’t be irrefutable or scientific?

Yes, your second question.

Because that’s not how science works. With testimony, there is credibility in question. How credible is the witness? and so forth. By its nature, testimony is subject to unprovable scrutiny (that is, scientific scruity, not court-of-law scrutiny) and is not irrefutable.

To refute testimony scientifically is to use the wrong test. The correct test would be “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in a court or some such.

How would there be testimony at the dawn of the universe? Nobody was alive back then. I don’t understand your point.

Testimony about it. From the dawn of our universe.

I’m not sure if I quite understand what you’re saying, but testimony can obviously be falsifiable. Let’s say I propose that flowers grow from seeds. You could test this testimony to find out if I’m right or wrong. I think the same could be applied to the dawn of the universe.

That’s what I said. That’s why it’s not irrefutable nor scientific to use testimony as scientific data.

Is the testimony of some guy born 1250 years after Abraham’s presumed birthdate less refutable ?
Because that is what the Bible is. And this is a fact…

No. The Bible was not written by one person. So, no that’s not a fact.

But also, no. I wasn’t talking about the Bible. As I said, knowledge about the science or physics of the universe was not important to know for them back then so he didn’t tell them that because it didn’t matter and they wouldn’t understand anyway.

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

There is testimony we can acquire, but that is not irrefutable nor scientific.

…how do you know that?

Are you asking how do I know there is testimony we can acquire? Or as you asking why it wouldn’t be irrefutable or scientific?

Yes, your second question.

Because that’s not how science works. With testimony, there is credibility in question. How credible is the witness? and so forth. By its nature, testimony is subject to unprovable scrutiny (that is, scientific scruity, not court-of-law scrutiny) and is not irrefutable.

To refute testimony scientifically is to use the wrong test. The correct test would be “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in a court or some such.

How would there be testimony at the dawn of the universe? Nobody was alive back then. I don’t understand your point.

Testimony about it. From the dawn of our universe.

I’m not sure if I quite understand what you’re saying, but testimony can obviously be falsifiable. Let’s say I propose that flowers grow from seeds. You could test this testimony to find out if I’m right or wrong. I think the same could be applied to the dawn of the universe.

That’s what I said. That’s why it’s not irrefutable nor scientific to use testimony as scientific data.

I said we can not scientifically prove the impetus or method of creation of the universe, but though there is testimony we can acquire it is not scientific nor irrefutable.

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

Frank your Majesty said:

chyron8472 said:

Frank your Majesty said:

chyron8472 said:

God literally created time and space.

Citation needed.

Now really. How would he have explained the space-time continuum to people who lived thousands of years ago? And when such an explanation would have been beside the point?

I didn’t ask for a citation on how he created it, I asked for a citation on that he created it.

As opposed to it happening spontaneously?

Yes.

To assume so makes far less sense. The universe is too complex, intricate and balanced to have been completely generated from nothing by nothing for no reason.

Opinion noted.

It’s the same thing people say about evolution.

What do people say about evolution?

To say that animals evolve to suit their environment, or that genetic mutations win or lose out over time to the ultimate change of a species or development of new ones…

Nah, people all the time seem to be confused about how a process like evolution could create such complex beings. Things like “how could evolution create something so complex as an eye?” etc.

that’s not the same things as to say that humans evolved from primates.

Do you believe this isn’t so?

I did imply that I don’t believe that, but the truth is I can’t really say. I suppose my response is “I need more information to make a determination.”

But evolution within a species over time, yes.

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

There is testimony we can acquire, but that is not irrefutable nor scientific.

…how do you know that?

Are you asking how do I know there is testimony we can acquire? Or as you asking why it wouldn’t be irrefutable or scientific?

Yes, your second question.

Because that’s not how science works. With testimony, there is credibility in question. How credible is the witness? and so forth. By its nature, testimony is subject to unprovable scrutiny (that is, scientific scruity, not court-of-law scrutiny) and is not irrefutable.

To refute testimony scientifically is to use the wrong test. The correct test would be “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in a court or some such.

How would there be testimony at the dawn of the universe? Nobody was alive back then. I don’t understand your point.

Testimony about it. From the dawn of our universe.

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

Frank your Majesty said:

chyron8472 said:

Frank your Majesty said:

chyron8472 said:

God literally created time and space.

Citation needed.

Now really. How would he have explained the space-time continuum to people who lived thousands of years ago? And when such an explanation would have been beside the point?

I didn’t ask for a citation on how he created it, I asked for a citation on that he created it.

As opposed to it happening spontaneously?

Yes.

To assume so makes far less sense. The universe is too complex, intricate and balanced to have been completely generated from nothing by nothing for no reason.

Opinion noted.

It’s the same thing people say about evolution.

What do people say about evolution?

To say that animals evolve to suit their environment, or that genetic mutations win or lose out over time to the ultimate change of a species or development of new ones… that’s not the same things as to say that humans evolved from primates.

double post.

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

There is testimony we can acquire, but that is not irrefutable nor scientific.

…how do you know that?

Are you asking how do I know there is testimony we can acquire? Or as you asking why it wouldn’t be irrefutable or scientific?

Yes, your second question.

Because that’s not how science works. With testimony, there is credibility in question. How credible is the witness? and so forth. By its nature, testimony is subject to unprovable scrutiny (that is, scientific scruity, not court-of-law scrutiny) and is not irrefutable.

To refute testimony scientifically is to use the wrong test. The correct test would be “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in a court or some such.

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

There is testimony we can acquire, but that is not irrefutable nor scientific.

…how do you know that?

Are you asking how do I know there is testimony we can acquire? Or as you asking why it wouldn’t be irrefutable or scientific?

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

Frank your Majesty said:

chyron8472 said:

Frank your Majesty said:

chyron8472 said:

God literally created time and space.

Citation needed.

Now really. How would he have explained the space-time continuum to people who lived thousands of years ago? And when such an explanation would have been beside the point?

I didn’t ask for a citation on how he created it, I asked for a citation on that he created it.

As opposed to it happening spontaneously?

Yes.

To assume so makes far less sense. The universe is too complex, intricate and balanced to have been completely generated from nothing by nothing for no reason.

Opinion noted.

Yes. But not invalidated.

There is testimony we can acquire, but that is not irrefutable nor scientific.

And what do you care anyway?

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

It’s the creation of the universe we’re talking about here. It can’t be fact. None of it. Not to us. You know that.

…why?

Because we can not gather the irrefutable data required. We do not have it. We can not get it.

It’s the creation of the universe we’re talking about here. It can’t be fact. None of it. Not to us. You know that.

I do not need to then present my perceptions of it as opinion, because of course they’re opinion because there is no irrefutable data to prove either way.

ZigZig said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

Frank your Majesty said:

chyron8472 said:

Frank your Majesty said:

chyron8472 said:

God literally created time and space.

Citation needed.

Now really. How would he have explained the space-time continuum to people who lived thousands of years ago? And when such an explanation would have been beside the point?

I didn’t ask for a citation on how he created it, I asked for a citation on that he created it.

As opposed to it happening spontaneously?

Yes.

To assume so makes far less sense. The universe is too complex, intricate and balanced to have been completely generated from nothing by nothing for no reason.

Citation needed.
Looks like you presents a fact to me. Again.

…far less sense to me.

Seriously. -.-

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

Frank your Majesty said:

chyron8472 said:

Frank your Majesty said:

chyron8472 said:

God literally created time and space.

Citation needed.

Now really. How would he have explained the space-time continuum to people who lived thousands of years ago? And when such an explanation would have been beside the point?

I didn’t ask for a citation on how he created it, I asked for a citation on that he created it.

As opposed to it happening spontaneously?

Yes.

To assume so makes far less sense. The universe is too complex, intricate and balanced to have been completely generated from nothing by nothing for no reason.

And, before we get into it, I will add that I do not assume you assert it as fact. It is one thing to say “If there is a God, he is unknowable and incomprehensible”. That, at least, is a reasonable position.

It is another to say the universe was created by itself spontaneously (ie. “without apparent external cause or stimulus.”) That makes no sense to me at all.

ZigZig said:

chyron8472 said:

ZigZig said:

chyron8472 said:

ZigZig said:

chyron8472 said:

God literally created time and space. There was no “beginning” before the beginning because before the beginning there was no time. As our universe expands, so does the boundaries of the space-time continuum. God created it. Therefore, he does not have to exist within it.

And therefore, because he created time itself and space itself, he is omnipotent and omnipresent because he is capable of being everywhere all the time.

 
Also, people who discount the existence of angels have never considered the concept of extradimensional planes of existence on which other beings may exist and be capable of some level of interaction with this one.

Apparently, you take everything literally as undeniable facts that must be read in the first degree without thinking nor smiling: the Bible as much as Frink’s posts …

Regarding the Bible: I did not say my understanding of God creating time and space is fact. It is my understanding.

dahmage said:

chyron8472 said:

Frank your Majesty said:

chyron8472 said:

Frank your Majesty said:

chyron8472 said:

God literally created time and space.

Citation needed.

Now really. How would he have explained the space-time continuum to people who lived thousands of years ago? And when such an explanation would have been beside the point?

I didn’t ask for a citation on how he created it, I asked for a citation on that he created it.

As opposed to it happening spontaneously?

you act like you just made an irrefutable point

No.

You said “God literally created time and space.”.
It looks like you present it as an indeniable fact to me…

But you are inferring that on your own. I did not say it is indeniable.

No, you just said “it’s a fact”.

Citation needed.

ZigZig said:

chyron8472 said:

ZigZig said:

chyron8472 said:

God literally created time and space. There was no “beginning” before the beginning because before the beginning there was no time. As our universe expands, so does the boundaries of the space-time continuum. God created it. Therefore, he does not have to exist within it.

And therefore, because he created time itself and space itself, he is omnipotent and omnipresent because he is capable of being everywhere all the time.

 
Also, people who discount the existence of angels have never considered the concept of extradimensional planes of existence on which other beings may exist and be capable of some level of interaction with this one.

Apparently, you take everything literally as undeniable facts that must be read in the first degree without thinking nor smiling: the Bible as much as Frink’s posts …

Regarding the Bible: I did not say my understanding of God creating time and space is fact. It is my understanding.

dahmage said:

chyron8472 said:

Frank your Majesty said:

chyron8472 said:

Frank your Majesty said:

chyron8472 said:

God literally created time and space.

Citation needed.

Now really. How would he have explained the space-time continuum to people who lived thousands of years ago? And when such an explanation would have been beside the point?

I didn’t ask for a citation on how he created it, I asked for a citation on that he created it.

As opposed to it happening spontaneously?

you act like you just made an irrefutable point

No.

You said “God literally created time and space.”.
It looks like you present it as an indeniable fact to me…

But you are inferring that on your own. I did not say it is indeniable. Do I have to say “In my opinion” or “From my perception” or “How I have come to understand it” at the beginning of my posts in order for them to not be perceived as my saying they’re fact?

Frank your Majesty said:

You said it’s literally what happened, so don’t be surprised if I take what you say literally.

Yes, I said God literally created time and space. I did not say he did it in seven 24-hour time periods. I did not say it is scientifically provable. I did not say it is fact. I did not say how he did it. And it wasn’t my point.

My point was that the Bible doesn’t say precisely how he did it because the people back then would not understand it and it was not important for them to know.