Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    167

    Is Jesus the Word that hold all things together?

    I typed "the universe is information Jesus is the word" into google.

    This was the first hit: http://www.ldolphin.org/cohere.shtml

    What Holds The Universe Together?

    by Lambert Dolphin

    Jesus and the Creation

    Several separate passages in the New Testament make reference to the creation of the universe. John's gospel speaks of an earlier state of existence than is described in Verse 1 of Genesis,

    In the beginning was the Word, [logos] and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; [before creation] all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father...No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known. (John 1: 1-17)

    This passage of the New Testament teaches that Jesus was eternally existent with God the Father prior to the creation of all things. Further, this Word, the Son of God, was and is fully God in his own right. At a point late in the history of mankind the Son of God became a man and was born into the human race in order to solve the problem of death and to repair a broken universe. (See Philippians Chapter 2, and Hebrews Chapter 2).

    Chapter One of Paul's Epistle to the Colossians gives a further description of the role of Jesus in creation which is consistent with John,

    [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born [prototokos] of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities [i.e., hierarchical angelic powers]---all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
    Last edited by rdelmonico; 11-23-2014 at 03:54 PM.
    There is a minimal level of dignity that should be afforded to all.
    No-one is above anyone else.
    No-one cares what you know unless they know that you care.
    Winning an argument and losing a friend is not (in my humble opinion) winning.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Tellus
    Posts
    755
    Quote Originally Posted by rdelmonico View Post
    The internet is full of hundreds of millions of bobble head dolls spewing out their opinions, I am included in this group.
    They are all speaking at the same time and no-one listening. Reminds me of lyrics from The lamb lies down on Broadway.
    The Chamber Of 32 Doors.

    Quote Originally Posted by rdelmonico
    Here is the question:
    Are you a miracle or an accident?



    How do we know?
    Seek and ye shall find?
    If the veil that separates the land of the living from the realm of the dead is torn open from top to bottom, then there will be no more atheist, (go back to the 1st word IF).
    Since the fathers fell asleep things have continued as they were.
    The mind grows by taking in
    :Mesiras Nefesh:
    THE HEART GROWS BY GIVING OUT

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,716
    Quote Originally Posted by rdelmonico View Post
    I typed "the universe is information Jesus is the word" into google.

    This was the first hit:

    What Holds The Universe Together?

    by Lambert Dolphin

    Jesus and the Creation
    Hey there rdelmonico,

    It's great to find things like this to discuss, but there's really no need to reproduce the whole article. It would be best to quote just the part that you want to comment on. Also, you should always provide a link to the source.

    I found it here: http://www.ldolphin.org/cohere.shtml

    It's also easier to read on the original source because it is formatted better, with indents for quotes, highlighted text, and so forth.

    Quote Originally Posted by rdelmonico View Post
    One of the key words in the Colossians passage above ("...and in Christ all things hold together") is the Greek word sunistemi which means "to stand-together," "to be compacted together," "to cohere," "to be constituted with." This passage can be applied to the structure of the atom, for example. The nucleus of every atom is held together by what physicists call "weak" and "strong" forces. (Physicists today are familiar with four basic forces in the natural world: gravity, electrical forces, a "strong," and a "weak" nuclear force which act at very short ranges. The first two forces decrease in strength inversely with the square of the distance between two objects. Recently two additional close-range, weak gravitational forces have been suggested. These are thought to be quantum mechanical corrections to Newton's Law of Gravitation.)

    The nucleus of the atom contains positively-charged and neutral particles--to use a simplistic model. Mutual electrostatic repulsion between the like-positive protons would drive the nucleus apart if it were not for the "strong force" which binds the nucleus together.

    The third New Testament passage which talks about atomic structure and physics is 2 Peter:

    "But the Day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise and the elements (atoms) will be dissolved with fire and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up." (2 Peter 3:10)

    The Greek word translated "elements" in this passage from Colossians is stoicheion which means the building blocks of the universe, or "the ordered arrangement of things." It can also mean the "atomic elements." The word translated "dissolved" is literally (in Greek) luo, meaning "unloosed." This suggests a further, future letting-go of the nuclear binding force that holds the nucleus together. This passage strongly suggests that the active power of God is behind the mysterious strong force that holds every atomic nucleus together. If this is so, all the other fundamental forces of nature are likewise forces that originate with Christ and His sustaining direction of the old creation.

    If this is a correct view, were God to merely relax His grasp on the universe every atom would come apart "by fire" (that is, by nuclear fire). God dynamically sustains the universe, including the atoms themselves. They are "stable" only because force from the spiritual realm is being supplied into the physical nuclear binding fields. Whatever we may think of God and physics, the Bible leaves us with no room to doubt that God does care about the sparrow that falls to the ground, the widow, the orphan, and the homeless. He does not lose track of His children and watches over them with infinite, patient, intimate Fatherly care. He sustains the universe by His mighty word of power. He also alters the status quo and, in response to prayer, frequently changes the course of entire nations.
    I think Lambert's "analysis" makes for fine fantasy, but nothing more. He says nothing of any consequence because nothing he says can be tested. He invents the idea of "force from the spiritual realm" which is supposed to act as a force in the physical realm. Is there any way to measure this supposedly "spiritual" force? Of course not. It's just empty words. I could just as well say that Tinkerbell holds the universe together with magic dust.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    434
    dp:

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I think Lambert's "analysis" makes for fine fantasy, but nothing more. He says nothing of any consequence because nothing he says can be tested. He invents the idea of "force from the spiritual realm" which is supposed to act as a force in the physical realm. Is there any way to measure this supposedly "spiritual" force? Of course not. It's just empty words. I could just as well say that Tinkerbell holds the universe together with magic dust.
    Richard, I agree that it is not only impossible to measure, it is also pantheistic and not biblical, therefore, fine fantasy, as you put it. The Bible teaches that God created all things that exist, visible and invisible, and is not to be confused with His creation. Yet, the Bible teaches clearly that God is present everywhere, all powerful, and all knowing, but never to be confused with His creation, or worshiped as any part of His creation.

    I don't give into the theory that the Higgs boson, or a possibly experimentally derived evasive graviton, will suddenly replace a need for the existence of God. It makes for great advancements in science, as all truth is God's truth, but to confuse the Creator with His creation is idolatry.

    You insist that the Christian have absolute answers for you in all of your categories, yet you believe that you have the atheistic or agnostic right to hide behind your ignorance, while dismissing biblical Christianity as delusional or deceptive. This is the constant game of evolutionists, everyone else has to prove their case, but they go on whistling in the dark, refusing to admit that their emperor has no clothes.

    The Christian benefits from all knowledge, all that advanced by scientific enquiry, that is all real, true science, and all of the knowledge of God and His purpose and plan for mankind, according to His revealed will. As great as scientific knowledge is, it dwarfs in comparison with the knowledge of the living God, Who in His Wisdom, has created all things. But He doesn't dance to our tune, answering to our demands, like some celestial bell-hop. You like to demand that God prove Himself, but God has already proven Himself, in His Word, and in the hearts and minds of those who have come to know Him through the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. Shall the thing formed, say to His God, show yourself, or else?

    Please don't think that I say this to insult you. Rather, I say this to make you think more clearly about how your delusions and deceptions still exist.
    dp:

    Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,716
    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    Richard, I agree that it is not only impossible to measure, it is also pantheistic and not biblical, therefore, fine fantasy, as you put it. The Bible teaches that God created all things that exist, visible and invisible, and is not to be confused with His creation. Yet, the Bible teaches clearly that God is present everywhere, all powerful, and all knowing, but never to be confused with His creation, or worshiped as any part of His creation.
    Good morning dp,

    Good to hear from you. It's been a while.

    I don't see anything "pantheistic" about the idea that God directly upholds all things by power of his word (Hebrews 1:3). I see nothing in what Lambert wrote that would "confuse God with his creation."

    Pantheism is the idea that creation IS God in some sense. Others have invented the idea that God pervades all creation. They call that "panentheism." Christian theologians might prefer this because it does not "confuse" God with his creation

    It seems to me that your idea that God should not be "confused" with his creation comes more from your religious tradition than the Bible. The Bible never says it like that, and so believers are free to interpret what it actually says in any way that is consistent with what it actually says. So they could be panentheists .... and perhaps even pantheists. Paul did say that God would be ALL IN ALL. That's a very pantheistic sort of thing to say.

    And there a history to thinking that there is nothing but God. It's a curious coincidence that a reader left a link on my blog last night to this site http://www.kabbalahart.com/gallery/ which has this to say about Deuteronomy 4:35 -

    Ein Ode Milvado

    There Is Nothing But G-d !


    This verse from the Torah (Devarim 4:35) is a very powerful meditation to remind ourselves of G-Ds presence in every situation.
    The deep meaning of this verse is discussed extensively in the Kabbalah. One of the inner meanings expressed by this verse, is the realization that nothing in life is a coincidence, and that everything is happening for a reason.

    It is explained in the Kabbalah that G-D created the world in order to give infinite goodness to all of the creation. This goodness is temporarily concealed from us, while we are all undergoing spiritual transformations. It is explained in the Kabbalah, that everything we are going through in our daily lives, is actually on the deepest level, spiritual transformations preparing us for this supernal goodness.
    The Kabbalah explains that everyone in the world is part of one universal soul, which is in the process of spiritually developing to the state of pure unconditional love. When we have attained this evolution of consciousness, we become able to experience the Divine and eternal goodness at the root of our every moment. In this state of enlightened experience, we come to see that even the most difficult and painful events of our lives, were all in the deepest reality hidden blessings, Divinely designed to allow our souls to spiritually develop in the most ultimate way.

    It is, most certainly, the hardest thing to be able to realize, that eternal goodness is at the root of everything we are going through. This realization is possible in the spiritual state of Emuna, which is a consciousness of unconditional love that transcends our normal intellectual state. The inner learning of the Kabbalah discusses the spiritual process of developing this higher awareness.

    It is taught in the Kabbalah that we have all been given free will. At the root of our free will, is how much effort a person decides to dedicate in their life towards spirituality and working to help others in any way that they can.

    We learn that although we have been given free will and are actually making decisions, that at the same time there is a Divine plan working within every moment of our lives. The cosmic dance and interface between free will and Divine providence, is mapped out extensively in the holy books of the Kabbalah.

    The inner understanding of how infinite unconditional love at the root of all creation becomes manifest in our present experience, and details of how to practically work with the notion that everything is for the good, is the heart of the spiritual learning of the Kabbalah. The Kabbalah reveals an inner understanding of our spiritual progression towards experiencing our Divine source in the realization of unconditional love and oneness.

    Ein Ode Milvado is discussed in the Kabbalah as one of the most powerful meditations and spiritual contemplations that we can use throughout our lives.
    It is interesting that Calvinism teaches the same thing as the Kabbalah on this point. There are "no coincidences" because "God ordains whatsoever comes to pass."

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    I don't give into the theory that the Higgs boson, or a possibly experimentally derived evasive graviton, will suddenly replace a need for the existence of God. It makes for great advancements in science, as all truth is God's truth, but to confuse the Creator with His creation is idolatry.
    And to create a creator in the image of man is the ultimate idolatry.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    You insist that the Christian have absolute answers for you in all of your categories, yet you believe that you have the atheistic or agnostic right to hide behind your ignorance, while dismissing biblical Christianity as delusional or deceptive. This is the constant game of evolutionists, everyone else has to prove their case, but they go on whistling in the dark, refusing to admit that their emperor has no clothes.
    Your assertions are quite absurd my friend. I hide behind nothing. I freely admit what I do and do not have good evidence and reason to believe. You, on the other hand, believe outrageous absurdities like the earth being only 6000 years old, the real existence of Adam and Eve, the supposed "fact" of a global flood, etc., etc. There is no equivalence between your unfounded beliefs and my adherence to logic an facts.

    Your assertion that there is no evidence for evolution is like saying there is no evidence that the earth is an oblate spheroid. Your assertions are on the same level as a Flat Earther.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    The Christian benefits from all knowledge, all that advanced by scientific enquiry, that is all real, true science, and all of the knowledge of God and His purpose and plan for mankind, according to His revealed will.
    Your definition of "real, true science" is logically incoherent. You must disintegrate the integrity of science to make room for ludicrous doctrines about a young earth, Adam and Eve, a global flood, etc. I can prove my words are true. Science is a unified whole. You must reject all science to hold to your beliefs. You must reject geology, geography, biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, evolution, etc., etc., etc. This is because science describes reality, and reality is a unified whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    As great as scientific knowledge is, it dwarfs in comparison with the knowledge of the living God, Who in His Wisdom, has created all things.
    You have no knowledge of any God! This is obvious because you can't even prove he exists. If you had KNOWLEDGE of anything, then by that knowledge you could prove that thing exists. All you have is BELIEF, and belief is not knowledge.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    But He doesn't dance to our tune, answering to our demands, like some celestial bell-hop. You like to demand that God prove Himself, but God has already proven Himself, in His Word, and in the hearts and minds of those who have come to know Him through the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. Shall the thing formed, say to His God, show yourself, or else?
    That's exactly what every cult says about their "god." It is not proof of anything except that religion is fundamentally delusional.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    Please don't think that I say this to insult you. Rather, I say this to make you think more clearly about how your delusions and deceptions still exist.
    No worries there my friend! How could I be insulted by your opinion. Folks have to go out of their way to deliberately insult me before I tak any notice of things like that.

    I trust the same is true for you. Nothing I have written is meant to be offensive in any way. I'm merely telling you how I see things, and why.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    434
    dp:

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post

    I don't see anything "pantheistic" about the idea that God directly upholds all things by power of his word (Hebrews 1:3). I see nothing in what Lambert wrote that would "confuse God with his creation."

    Pantheism is the idea that creation IS God in some sense. Others have invented the idea that God pervades all creation. They call that "panentheism." Christian theologians might prefer this because it does not "confuse" God with his creation

    It seems to me that your idea that God should not be "confused" with his creation comes more from your religious tradition than the Bible. The Bible never says it like that, and so believers are free to interpret what it actually says in any way that is consistent with what it actually says. So they could be panentheists .... and perhaps even pantheists. Paul did say that God would be ALL IN ALL. That's a very pantheistic sort of thing to say.
    Richard, in Delmonico's article there was a reference there to the under-force of all matter, embedded beneath the Zero Point Energy, was a spiritual force, spoken of in pantheistic like language. If the writer didn't mean that, he should have spoken more clearly. I was just clarifying that the God of the Bible is never to be confused with His creation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post

    It is interesting that Calvinism teaches the same thing as the Kabbalah on this point. There are "no coincidences" because "God ordains whatsoever comes to pass."
    Calvin qualifies that with, God cannot and will not sin. I'd like to see you try and hold the Kaballists to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post

    And to create a creator in the image of man is the ultimate idolatry.
    I agree. That is why it is so important to rightfully interpret the Word of God, our only source as to the true nature of God and His revealed plan for this world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Your assertions are quite absurd my friend. I hide behind nothing. I freely admit what I do and do not have good evidence and reason to believe. You, on the other hand, believe outrageous absurdities like the earth being only 6000 years old, the real existence of Adam and Eve, the supposed "fact" of a global flood, etc., etc. There is no equivalence between your unfounded beliefs and my adherence to logic an facts.
    You obviously don't like the word hide, and it was only used to draw attention to the fact that you demand of Christians what you cannot even come close to provide for your own worldview. Agnosticism loves to play these games, and modern day atheists know they are being illogical in what they pretend they can prove, so they "hide" behind the softer egg of agnosticism, saying we don't know, but someday we will know.

    You have probably heard of the two types of agnostics, the hard boiled egg kind, that says we cannot know anything for sure, and the soft boiled egg kind, that leaves a few things knowable (realising that to say we cannot know anything absolutely for sure, is an absolute statement in and of itself).

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post

    Your assertion that there is no evidence for evolution is like saying there is no evidence that the earth is an oblate spheroid. Your assertions are on the same level as a Flat Earther.
    There you go again, pretending that mutational and adaptational change proves creation evolution. Do I have to define evolution into two categories all over again? Biblical Christians deny that all of life evolved on its own, life from non-life. And any knowledgeable thinking Christian believes that there is proof everywhere of change within life. God even said in Genesis, that all kinds produce their own kinds. All breeders know of this truth, Christian and non-Christian. But life from non-life, has not only been NOT demonstrated, it is mathematically and biologically absurd to pretend it has been.

    I think creation evolutionists are on the same level as Flat Earthers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Your definition of "real, true science" is logically incoherent. You must disintegrate the integrity of science to make room for ludicrous doctrines about a young earth, Adam and Eve, a global flood, etc. I can prove my words are true. Science is a unified whole. You must reject all science to hold to your beliefs. You must reject geology, geography, biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, evolution, etc., etc., etc. This is because science describes reality, and reality is a unified whole.
    I must not reject one element of any science. What I reject are pseudo-scientific dogmas overlayed, erroneously, on true science. You seem to forget that many of the pioneers in these natural sciences were also Bible believing Christians.

    I do believe that science describes reality, at least to the level that we can discover it. I also believe that reality is a unified whole, but this also includes the reality of the existence of the God of the Bible, Who created all things, visible and invisible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    You have no knowledge of any God! This is obvious because you can't even prove he exists. If you had KNOWLEDGE of anything, then by that knowledge you could prove that thing exists. All you have is BELIEF, and belief is not knowledge.
    I believe that the Bible proves the existence of God, and in addition, declares the existence of God. There is absolutely nothing of BLIND faith in the Bible. God gives us enough reasons and experiences to believe and we trust Him for that which we do not know, believing that He will always be consistent to what He has revealed. BLIND faith is in the camp of the creation evolutionists, who have no proof for anything they teach, yet pretend that they have proven it, all the while blaming the Christians for a lack of proof, the very thing they lack themselves. God has given us a wonderful playground, or scientific laboratory to carry on all kinds of experiments, and for that I am thankful.

    Van Til really saw things quite correctly when he likened the rebellious atheist to a rebellious child, who while sitting on his father's lap, can reach up and slap him in the face. He wouldn't even be able to do this, if he weren't already sitting in his lap.

    Richard, you use all the gifts that God has given you, only to rise up in rebellion in a futile attempt to slap Him in the face. Maybe someday, you and Rose will see that, just like Solomon, all is vanity.
    dp:

    Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,716
    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    Richard, in Delmonico's article there was a reference there to the under-force of all matter, embedded beneath the Zero Point Energy, was a spiritual force, spoken of in pantheistic like language. If the writer didn't mean that, he should have spoken more clearly. I was just clarifying that the God of the Bible is never to be confused with His creation.
    The article was large and you did not specify which part you were talking about. And even now, I don't know what you think was "spoken of in pantheistic like language" because you have not specified. So at this point I don't know if Lambert Dolphin "should have spoken more clearly" but I do know you should have!

    BTW - I'm really enjoying this conversation.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    Calvin qualifies that with, God cannot and will not sin. I'd like to see you try and hold the Kaballists to that.
    Calvin's qualification is logically incoherent. It is impossible to ordain something without being responsible for it.

    And as for the Kabbalists - they are as different amongst themselves as any collection of Christians, so you could probably find pretty much anything you go looking for. Just like I can find anti-trinitarian Bible believers.

    But in general, I think you would find it difficult to find any Kabbalist who would say that God could or would sin.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    And to create a creator in the image of man is the ultimate idolatry.
    I agree. That is why it is so important to rightfully interpret the Word of God, our only source as to the true nature of God and His revealed plan for this world.
    I was talking about the God of the Bible. Everyone knows that he is described in anthropomorphic terms. Christians must go to great lengths to explain away those passages.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    You obviously don't like the word hide, and it was only used to draw attention to the fact that you demand of Christians what you cannot even come close to provide for your own worldview. Agnosticism loves to play these games, and modern day atheists know they are being illogical in what they pretend they can prove, so they "hide" behind the softer egg of agnosticism, saying we don't know, but someday we will know.
    Your assertion is ridiculous. I have good reasons based on solid evidence for my "worldview." You, on the other hand, choose to believe things that directly contradict the evidence for no reason except that they are taught in your holy book. It is ludicrous for you to suggest there is any kind of equivalence between your position and mine.

    Agnosticism is not a place to "hide." It is an honest admission of what I can say that I "know." It has nothing to do with atheism. I am not a theist and so I am, by definition, an atheist. But I don't know that there is no some sort of God I don't know about, so I am an agnostic atheist. I am not "hiding" from anything. On the contrary, I am fully open about what I believe and why.

    If you think I "know" that I am "being illogical" then please explain what you mean. I presume you are reasserting your presuppositional crap that I've already dispatched. I tried to discuss it with you, and you rejected both logic and epistemology. That proves that your appeal to presuppositionalism is total bullshit. Please take no offense. I'm just telling what I see. Presuppositionalism is based fundamentally on confused ideas about logic and epistemology and yet you refuse to discuss it in those terms. Therefore, your position is bullshit.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    You have probably heard of the two types of agnostics, the hard boiled egg kind, that says we cannot know anything for sure, and the soft boiled egg kind, that leaves a few things knowable (realising that to say we cannot know anything absolutely for sure, is an absolute statement in and of itself).
    That's epistemology. What is knowledge? How do we know what we know? Questions like that. I think you are correct that some people use questions like that to "hide" from things they can't refute, but I'm not one them.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    There you go again, pretending that mutational and adaptational change proves creation evolution. Do I have to define evolution into two categories all over again? Biblical Christians deny that all of life evolved on its own, life from non-life. And any knowledgeable thinking Christian believes that there is proof everywhere of change within life. God even said in Genesis, that all kinds produce their own kinds. All breeders know of this truth, Christian and non-Christian. But life from non-life, has not only been NOT demonstrated, it is mathematically and biologically absurd to pretend it has been.
    Hard science gives strong evidence for common descent. Whether a designed was needed for the creation of the first cell is irrelevant to the question of common descent and evolution.

    It is good you admit that there is "change within life." The problem with "kinds" is that they are not defined and so have no scientific meaning.

    As for the "mathematical and biological absurdity" of abiogenesis - you believe that merely because it is what you want to believe. You accept other "mathematical and biological absurdities" such as a young earth and Adam and Eve. It is obvious that you pick and choose which bits and pieces of science you will accept according to one criterion - does it fit with your religious dogmas taught by primitive men 2000 years ago? That is not a valid path to truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    I think creation evolutionists are on the same level as Flat Earthers.
    Gibberish.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    I must not reject one element of any science. What I reject are pseudo-scientific dogmas overlayed, erroneously, on true science. You seem to forget that many of the pioneers in these natural sciences were also Bible believing Christians.
    Not true. You must reject all science that establishes the age of the earth and the cosmos. For you to call it 'pseudo-scientific dogmas" is totally delusional.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    I do believe that science describes reality, at least to the level that we can discover it. I also believe that reality is a unified whole, but this also includes the reality of the existence of the God of the Bible, Who created all things, visible and invisible.
    We know that the Bible and it's God cannot be true because the Bible is logically incoherent and asserts things that are blatantly false, such as a young earth, Adam and Eve, global flood, and moral abominations attributed to God.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    I believe that the Bible proves the existence of God, and in addition, declares the existence of God. There is absolutely nothing of BLIND faith in the Bible. God gives us enough reasons and experiences to believe and we trust Him for that which we do not know, believing that He will always be consistent to what He has revealed. BLIND faith is in the camp of the creation evolutionists, who have no proof for anything they teach, yet pretend that they have proven it, all the while blaming the Christians for a lack of proof, the very thing they lack themselves. God has given us a wonderful playground, or scientific laboratory to carry on all kinds of experiments, and for that I am thankful.
    The Bible explicitly teaches BLIND FAITH in many verses:

    John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

    Hebrews 11:1 Now [BLIND] faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

    I could give many more examples, but there is no need. Everyone knows that faith is required BECAUSE there is nothing like sufficient evidence.

    Your assertion that "the creation evolutionists, who have no proof for anything they teach, yet pretend that they have proven it" is absurd beyond all description. It is totally and utterly delusional. The only way you could make such assertions would be if you were totally and absolutely ignorant of the most basic elements of evolutionary science.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    Van Til really saw things quite correctly when he likened the rebellious atheist to a rebellious child, who while sitting on his father's lap, can reach up and slap him in the face. He wouldn't even be able to do this, if he weren't already sitting in his lap.
    Van Til was full of shit. It is ludicrous to assert that the Christian god is necessary for the existence of human language and logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    Richard, you use all the gifts that God has given you, only to rise up in rebellion in a futile attempt to slap Him in the face. Maybe someday, you and Rose will see that, just like Solomon, all is vanity.
    Futile? Give me a break. You have yet to present anything like a meaningful challenge to my position.

    But I do enjoy engaging you on these issues.

    So let's see if there is any substance to your position. Do you have any evidence that actually challenges anything I believe? If so, please present it.

    Great chatting!



    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    434
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    The article was large and you did not specify which part you were talking about. And even now, I don't know what you think was "spoken of in pantheistic like language" because you have not specified. So at this point I don't know if Lambert Dolphin "should have spoken more clearly" but I do know you should have!
    Richard, Delmonico posted the following quote in that lengthy, but interesting article:


    If the vacuum is not no-thing, what is the aether made of? It can not be pure spirit or even "condensed spirit" or we would be flirting with pantheism, because God is a Spirit, the angels and men are created spirits and each of these is a "life-form." The aether is not alive. The aether does appears to have real metric properties which can change as space is expanded or contracted, yet it appears to be a substance that is more a part of the created spiritual world than a tangible physical substance.

    Is the aether the substrate, the boundary layer between our physical material world and the created world of the spirit (called in Scripture "the heavenly places")? This is probably not an unreasonable working hypothesis.

    The Bible does speak of God as "the ground of all being" in that He is not only "above" but also "below." In a famous address to the philosophers of Athens in the First Century, the Apostle Paul confronted them with a challenge to their existing polytheism,

    "The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything. And he made from one [man, i.e., Adam] every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us, for `In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your poets have said, `For we are indeed his offspring.' Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, [Jesus] and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead." (Acts 17:24-31)
    Elsewhere in the article, he seems to speak against pantheism, but this is the confusing talk I was referring to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post

    Calvin's qualification is logically incoherent. It is impossible to ordain something without being responsible for it.

    And as for the Kabbalists - they are as different amongst themselves as any collection of Christians, so you could probably find pretty much anything you go looking for. Just like I can find anti-trinitarian Bible believers.

    But in general, I think you would find it difficult to find any Kabbalist who would say that God could or would sin.
    Calvin's comments may be incoherent to you, but the Bible clearly teaches that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass, yet without sin. Think of the most extreme demonstration of this, the crucifixion of Christ. God clearly ordained that Jesus Christ would be the sacrificial Lamb of God, Who would take away the sin of the world, that is, of all those who place their faith and trust in His atoning work on their behalf, and who are willing to repent of their sins, and receive the free gift of God's salvation by faith in His accomplished work on their behalf, turning from their ways and living in obedience to His revealed will, in His Word.

    Yet, it was evil, sinful men, who put Christ on the Cross of Calvary, and they will be judged accordingly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I was talking about the God of the Bible. Everyone knows that he is described in anthropomorphic terms. Christians must go to great lengths to explain away those passages.
    No, God speaks through His Word in anthropomorphic terms, because we of this world understand in anthropomorphic terms. Therefore, He is a door, a mother hen with her chicks, a good shepherd, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Your assertion is ridiculous. I have good reasons based on solid evidence for my "worldview." You, on the other hand, choose to believe things that directly contradict the evidence for no reason except that they are taught in your holy book. It is ludicrous for you to suggest there is any kind of equivalence between your position and mine.

    Agnosticism is not a place to "hide." It is an honest admission of what I can say that I "know." It has nothing to do with atheism. I am not a theist and so I am, by definition, an atheist. But I don't know that there is no some sort of God I don't know about, so I am an agnostic atheist. I am not "hiding" from anything. On the contrary, I am fully open about what I believe and why.
    Nobody said you weren't fully open about what you believe, but the why might be sound in your own mind, but for someone who has an encounter with the Living God, it comes up wanting. And your switching from the terms atheist to agnostic is a nice game, but these two categories are very different.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    If you think I "know" that I am "being illogical" then please explain what you mean. I presume you are reasserting your presuppositional crap that I've already dispatched. I tried to discuss it with you, and you rejected both logic and epistemology. That proves that your appeal to presuppositionalism is total bullshit. Please take no offense. I'm just telling what I see. Presuppositionalism is based fundamentally on confused ideas about logic and epistemology and yet you refuse to discuss it in those terms. Therefore, your position is bullshit.
    I don't know if you are consciously being illogical, or deceptively illogical. I have to take your word for it, as I am not a mind reader. But God introduces Himself in the Scriptures of the OT, and then in the NT, presuppositionally, that is, He asserts His Being and existence, and then continues to proclaim His Word to us, based on His Perfect Wisdom. He doesn't prove Himself like a logical set of proofs. None of this is illogical, but it does transcend logic. In other words, through Natural Revelation alone, nothing in this world makes sense without His Being. He gives us countless reasons to believe in Him, yet we can choose to suppress that truth of His Being in unrighteousness.

    As I have said before, you must presuppose the foundational elements of Logic, in order for any communication or language to take place at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    That's epistemology. What is knowledge? How do we know what we know? Questions like that. I think you are correct that some people use questions like that to "hide" from things they can't refute, but I'm not one them.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn
    You have probably heard of the two types of agnostics, the hard boiled egg kind, that says we cannot know anything for sure, and the soft boiled egg kind, that leaves a few things knowable (realising that to say we cannot know anything absolutely for sure, is an absolute statement in and of itself).
    I revert back to how you like to call yourself an atheist, pretending that you have proven that God does not exist, but then, as an agnostic when actually having to prove He does not exist.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hard science gives strong evidence for common descent. Whether a designed was needed for the creation of the first cell is irrelevant to the question of common descent and evolution.

    It is good you admit that there is "change within life." The problem with "kinds" is that they are not defined and so have no scientific meaning.

    As for the "mathematical and biological absurdity" of abiogenesis - you believe that merely because it is what you want to believe. You accept other "mathematical and biological absurdities" such as a young earth and Adam and Eve. It is obvious that you pick and choose which bits and pieces of science you will accept according to one criterion - does it fit with your religious dogmas taught by primitive men 2000 years ago? That is not a valid path to truth.
    ... You must reject all science that establishes the age of the earth and the cosmos. For you to call it 'pseudo-scientific dogmas" is totally delusional ... We know that the Bible and it's God cannot be true because the Bible is logically incoherent and asserts things that are blatantly false, such as a young earth, Adam and Eve, global flood, and moral abominations attributed to God.
    It is true, we have defined in the science of Taxonomy, our categories of animal and plant life, much after the creation account in Genesis. But common sense tells us that a cat kind doesn't produce a dog kind. These cross-overs have never been naturally observed. Of course with transhumanism on the rise in the souls of men, who knows what they will conspire to create, or what they might have already created in underground labs (please avoid the patronising conspiracy theory lecture)? And no, I am not preoccupied with this, or worried about it in some sort of paranoid way, but to deny it is going on, would be very delusional.

    But you have narrowed down my accusation of pseudo-science to these few categories, which you have no way of proving either. You only assert this. There are almost countless categories where pseudo-science screams at you, such as the natural formation of life from non-life. It is possible that some of my interpretations are incorrect. In such a case, I would pray that God would grant me the wisdom, knowledge, and understanding to see where I am wrong, and the grace to be truthful to that knowledge. But I am not prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater, even a few of my interpretations of truth were found to be false.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    The Bible explicitly teaches BLIND FAITH in many verses:

    John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

    Hebrews 11:1 Now [BLIND] faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

    I could give many more examples, but there is no need. Everyone knows that faith is required BECAUSE there is nothing like sufficient evidence.
    In John, Jesus is merely talking to Thomas of those who believe by not physically seeing Him following the resurrection. In Hebrews, You had to add [BLIND] for it to mean "blind". You will notice that faith is the "substance of things hoped for", not something [BLIND] hoped for

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Your assertion that "the creation evolutionists, who have no proof for anything they teach, yet pretend that they have proven it" is absurd beyond all description. It is totally and utterly delusional. The only way you could make such assertions would be if you were totally and absolutely ignorant of the most basic elements of evolutionary science.
    I think you know I was referring to the subject of life evolving from non-life, like all my posts. They may have countless examples of change once life is in existence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Van Til was full of shit. It is ludicrous to assert that the Christian god is necessary for the existence of human language and logic.
    I would probably reverse the order of language and logic, to logic and language, as there is real logical content in all of language.

    You might want to read something of Van Til, if you never have. Then if you are still outraged at him, you might want to dig him up and tell that to his boney face.
    dp:

    Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there rdelmonico,

    It's great to find things like this to discuss, but there's really no need to reproduce the whole article. It would be best to quote just the part that you want to comment on. Also, you should always provide a link to the source.

    I found it here: http://www.ldolphin.org/cohere.shtml

    It's also easier to read on the original source because it is formatted better, with indents for quotes, highlighted text, and so forth.


    I think Lambert's "analysis" makes for fine fantasy, but nothing more. He says nothing of any consequence because nothing he says can be tested. He invents the idea of "force from the spiritual realm" which is supposed to act as a force in the physical realm. Is there any way to measure this supposedly "spiritual" force? Of course not. It's just empty words. I could just as well say that Tinkerbell holds the universe together with magic dust.

    OK
    Got it.
    Thanks
    There is a minimal level of dignity that should be afforded to all.
    No-one is above anyone else.
    No-one cares what you know unless they know that you care.
    Winning an argument and losing a friend is not (in my humble opinion) winning.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,716
    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    Richard, Delmonico posted the following quote in that lengthy, but interesting article:

    Elsewhere in the article, he seems to speak against pantheism, but this is the confusing talk I was referring to.
    Yes, it was very lengthy, which is why I didn't know precisely which part you were criticising. And you still have not stated why you think the words are problematic.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    Calvin's comments may be incoherent to you, but the Bible clearly teaches that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass, yet without sin. Think of the most extreme demonstration of this, the crucifixion of Christ. God clearly ordained that Jesus Christ would be the sacrificial Lamb of God, Who would take away the sin of the world, that is, of all those who place their faith and trust in His atoning work on their behalf, and who are willing to repent of their sins, and receive the free gift of God's salvation by faith in His accomplished work on their behalf, turning from their ways and living in obedience to His revealed will, in His Word.

    Yet, it was evil, sinful men, who put Christ on the Cross of Calvary, and they will be judged accordingly.
    The fact that some events were predetermined by God does not imply that all events are predetermined. The Bible no where teaches that "God determines whatsover comes to pass."

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    No, God speaks through His Word in anthropomorphic terms, because we of this world understand in anthropomorphic terms. Therefore, He is a door, a mother hen with her chicks, a good shepherd, etc.
    A better explanation is that the men who wrote the Bible created a god in their own image.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    Nobody said you weren't fully open about what you believe, but the why might be sound in your own mind, but for someone who has an encounter with the Living God, it comes up wanting. And your switching from the terms atheist to agnostic is a nice game, but these two categories are very different.
    And exactly how am I supposed to distinguish between those who have had an authentic "encounter with the Living God" and those who are deluded?

    I have not "switched" the terms atheist and agnostic. My use of those terms is perfect and precise. I am not a theist and so by definition I am an atheist. I am an agnostic atheist because I know that I cannot know if there is a god who has not made himself known. It's very simple stuff. You need to re-read my comment.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    If you think I "know" that I am "being illogical" then please explain what you mean. I presume you are reasserting your presuppositional crap that I've already dispatched. I tried to discuss it with you, and you rejected both logic and epistemology. That proves that your appeal to presuppositionalism is total bullshit. Please take no offense. I'm just telling what I see. Presuppositionalism is based fundamentally on confused ideas about logic and epistemology and yet you refuse to discuss it in those terms. Therefore, your position is bullshit.
    I don't know if you are consciously being illogical, or deceptively illogical. I have to take your word for it, as I am not a mind reader. But God introduces Himself in the Scriptures of the OT, and then in the NT, presuppositionally, that is, He asserts His Being and existence, and then continues to proclaim His Word to us, based on His Perfect Wisdom. He doesn't prove Himself like a logical set of proofs. None of this is illogical, but it does transcend logic. In other words, through Natural Revelation alone, nothing in this world makes sense without His Being. He gives us countless reasons to believe in Him, yet we can choose to suppress that truth of His Being in unrighteousness.

    As I have said before, you must presuppose the foundational elements of Logic, in order for any communication or language to take place at all.
    And as I explained in great detail, your assertion that I must "presuppose the foundational elements of Logic" has nothing to do with the existence of an utterly irrational primitive tribal war god like Yahweh.

    You apparently are not paying attention to the conversation. You cannot merely assert that Allah, Yahweh, or Zeus is God and expect everyone to simply accept your assertion. Nothing could be more irrational.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    I revert back to how you like to call yourself an atheist, pretending that you have proven that God does not exist, but then, as an agnostic when actually having to prove He does not exist.
    Ah, I see the root of your confusion. It is true I have said that Yahweh cannot be the true God, and I gave my reasons for that conclusion. I am not "agnostic" about Yahweh and have never claimed to be.

    I stated my position clearly. I am agnostic about the existence of a god I know nothing about since I cannot know about the existence of a god I know nothing about. Yahweh is different. I know what the Bible says about him, and that's how I know he cannot exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    It is true, we have defined in the science of Taxonomy, our categories of animal and plant life, much after the creation account in Genesis. But common sense tells us that a cat kind doesn't produce a dog kind. These cross-overs have never been naturally observed.
    CROSSOVERS??? Are you kidding me? You comment indicates an absolute total and complete ignorance of the most basic elements of evolutionary biology. It does not posit the existence of "crossovers" like cat-to-dog or crockaduck! No wonder you oppose it - you don't have half a clue of what it's actually about. Your mind has been corrupted by perverse creationist lies spewed out by the likes of Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Crocoduck1.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	70.7 KB 
ID:	1470


    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    But you have narrowed down my accusation of pseudo-science to these few categories, which you have no way of proving either. You only assert this. There are almost countless categories where pseudo-science screams at you, such as the natural formation of life from non-life.
    I have never presented any scientific claims about how life arose from non-life. And why not? Because we don't know. It is absurd for you to make an issue of this. I have repeatedly stated that it is possible life was intelligently designed because nobody knows how it originated. But neither do you know how life originated, so the whole point is moot. It has nothing to do with the evidence for common descent and evolution.

    It gets tedious repeating the same facts over and over.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    It is possible that some of my interpretations are incorrect. In such a case, I would pray that God would grant me the wisdom, knowledge, and understanding to see where I am wrong, and the grace to be truthful to that knowledge. But I am not prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater, even a few of my interpretations of truth were found to be false.
    Prayer is not the pat to truth or wisdom. Harold Camping sincerely prayed every day for "wisdom" to understand God's Word and look what happened to him and all his followers who were likewise obsessed with praying to their delusional god. Why do you think you are any different than them? They were every bit as sincere as you. They totally believed the Bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    In John, Jesus is merely talking to Thomas of those who believe by not physically seeing Him following the resurrection. In Hebrews, You had to add [BLIND] for it to mean "blind". You will notice that faith is the "substance of things hoped for", not something [BLIND] hoped for
    I added the word "blind" to help you see the truth. It is absurd to say that "faith" is "evidence." That is a total contradiction in terms. You must "believe that God exists" because you have no evidence. If you had evidence, what virtue would there to believe? What then would this verse mean?

    Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

    Please explain what that verse could mean if not speaking about BLIND faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    I think you know I was referring to the subject of life evolving from non-life, like all my posts. They may have countless examples of change once life is in existence.
    So you accept the basic theory of evolution concerning the origin of species? You believe that all species descended from a single common ancestor, the first cell?

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    I would probably reverse the order of language and logic, to logic and language, as there is real logical content in all of language.

    You might want to read something of Van Til, if you never have. Then if you are still outraged at him, you might want to dig him up and tell that to his boney face.
    If he had anything worth saying, I would think you could provide a quote or two.

    I know the convo is getting heated. Let's not let it disrupt our peace, eh? I enjoy discussing things with you.

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •