Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,851
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    As far as we know, our known universe is without life except for this one planet As far as we know, this earth is unique and could remain this way for ever. Man is the pinnacle of life on this planet. For all we know, God might not be able to create a better life form than man.
    I agree with all those statements except the idea that "God might not be able to create a better life form than man." That idea cannot be true because there are many flaws left by evolution in the structure of humans. If God can't do better than blind evolution, then he's not much of a god.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    God's only begotten Son Jesus is the pinnacle of all men. This is why Jesus remains God's only Son.
    According to the Bible, any believer is called "God's son." Jesus is not God's "only" son. He is God's "unique" (monogenes) son amongst many other sons.

    It is interesting that Islam has a doctrine that says Muhammad was the "Perfect Man" -
    The phrase Perfect Man, is often said to have first been used by Ibn Arabi, though the concept of the Perfect Man is much older, possibly going back to the origins of Sufism, as the doctrine is integral to much Sufi belief and practice. The Doctrine of the Universal Man” (al-Insan-al-Kamil) states that the primordial, archetypal man embodies within him all the divine attributes of God, and man has essentially fallen from this perfect state (see Nicholson, 1984), which has resulted in man’s separation from His Creator. This separation begins with the theological concept of Adam’s fall from Paradise. Reflection on this separation led to the Sufi development of the Doctrine of the Universal Man (al-Insan al-Kamil). The doctrine contends that the universal, primordial, archetypal man which was "Adam” before the fall, was in touch with the creator and vicegerent on earth. Sufis believe that all people have the potential to regain this perfect primordial state. Ibn Arabi, when writing about the Perfect man in his thirteenth century writings used 22 terms to describe the same thing as insa al-kamil, such as the reality of realities, the reality of Mohammad, the Vicegerent, God’s representative, and the Pole.

    Thus, the Perfect Man can be defined as a person who has fully realized his essential oneness with the Divine Being, God. Those who achieve this level of the Perfect Man are usually called awliya (translated as friend of God) or saint.
    The idea of a "primordial" or "archetypal" man is found also in Judaism. They call him Adam Qadman. And it is found in Hinduism which describes Krishna, saying "The lotus-eyed, dark skinned Krishna is the complete and perfect man of Indian mythological traditions." I think this reveals the idea of a "Perfect Man" to be archetype shared by all humanity, just like we have an archetype of a perfect circle that is never actually realize in any real circle. This explains the near universal concept of the "Fall" which is inevitable when REALITY is compared with the IDEAL ARCHETYPE.

    This is why the Bible seems to be symbolic or mythological when it speaks of the perfection of Christ. It sounds like all the other myths found all over the world that are really speaking of IDEALS and ARCHETYPES as opposed to actual, historical, physical realities that always contain imperfections because of the nature of reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    If God could create a better life form, is it logical to think that God might yet have another Son or that there would be no need for another son of God in another creation? The idea of another Son of God would muck up the idea of the Trinity that somehow Jesus (only) was with God from the very beginning. Jesus is the unique Son of God who was a man. The conception within Mary was a unique event but the baby that was born is no more unique than you and I are unique and we have no double.
    I find it fascinating how freely you use untestable hypothetical ideas when you "reason from Scripture" given that you show great skepticism for scientific hypotheses that we can actually have some hope of testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Life of earth (as man has come to understand) is finely balanced, just as the moon has been set in the heavens to compliment the Sun and both of these are at exactly the right distance from the earth that enables life to be sustained. Whether life in earth can survive without the moon is another question, we can speculate about in another thread.
    It is interesting that you bring up the moon, since I listened to a podcast last night concerning theories of it's formation. I don't think we can say that its orbit is "finely tuned" because it has been always changing. It currently is moving away from the earth at about one inch per year. It adjusts itself according the basic laws of physics. It used to spin faster but now is "tidal locked" so that the same side always faces the earth, just as Mercury is tidal locked with the sun.

    But in any case, it is a striking feature of our planet and makes life "better" though it seems quite unlikely that life actually depends upon it. The most important role is tides which flush out the coast. And it is convenient as a "night light." And it has been very useful to help humans learn science because of eclipses. Things like this make some folks feel like God put it there for our good. But the natural history of the moon doesn't allow for the "simple minded" creationism that says God "put it there" like a kid hanging an ornament on a Christmas tree. There is good evidence that it got there through natural law. God's only role, if any, would have been to set up the "initial conditions" of the universe that then led inevitably through physical causality to the current configuration.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    So should we regard the term "tuning" as it is being applied to this universe as only really applying to this planet? Life on earth might need only the sun and possibly the moon and everything else in the universe could be taken away without having any effect.
    The "fine tuning" of the planet is entirely different than the "fine tuning" of the laws of nature. The fine tuning of the planet involves CONTINGENT things like the placement of the earth from the sun, the existence of the moon, etc. The fine tuning of the laws involves the values of fundamental constants like the speed of light, the strength of gravity, etc. and the form of the laws, such as Schrodinger's equation. The laws define the nature of the universe, whereas the contingent things depend upon events within that universe.
    • 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

  2. #22
    I am in the minority as one who believes that the Bible is inerrant in proclaiming the truth, but as a result of my education in science accept a form of evolution as the way in which all life forms, including man, came into being. It has been my belief that God used the laws of nature to create every aspect of the universe. I have come to believe that numbers are the language of God. Every aspect of our material universe arises as the result of numbers related to quantum physics which explain matter, and also explain every chemical reaction which is responsible for every physiologic action of life. Therefore, when God spoke, establishing the numerical equations which explain the existence of matter, the evolutionary process of creation was begun.

    There is another realm aside from our material existence, and that is the spiritual realm, of which we have no real knowledge. It is my suppostion that, at some point in time, God placed a spirit into the flesh of men, thereby creating man in his own image as a spiritual being. With this premise, I have attached a file which shows gematria findings which seem to support this supposition. I submit it for the consideration of those interested in this topic.

    Creation.pdf


    76of86

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,851
    Quote Originally Posted by 76of86 View Post
    I am in the minority as one who believes that the Bible is inerrant in proclaiming the truth, but as a result of my education in science accept a form of evolution as the way in which all life forms, including man, came into being. It has been my belief that God used the laws of nature to create every aspect of the universe. I have come to believe that numbers are the language of God. Every aspect of our material universe arises as the result of numbers related to quantum physics which explain matter, and also explain every chemical reaction which is responsible for every physiologic action of life. Therefore, when God spoke, establishing the numerical equations which explain the existence of matter, the evolutionary process of creation was begun.
    Hey there 76of86,

    Great post! Thanks. I think you have made very intelligent choices. When I was a theist I believed similar things, and still would say the same things about Cosmic Consciousness as the Ground of Being (if that turns out to be true). I just don't think that the Universal Consciousness has an ego like Yahweh and other theistic style gods.

    Your "education in science" has served you well. What fields did you study? I got degrees in Mathematics and Physics. It trained my mind well to discern the difference between chance and design (whether by natural law or intelligent agency).

    There is an ancient intuition that "numbers are the language of God." It has been realized since the scientific revolution in a profoundly deeper way than Plato could have imagined, especially in the last century with Quantum Mechanics where whole numbers play a significant role (unlike Classical Mechanics).

    Quote Originally Posted by 76of86 View Post
    There is another realm aside from our material existence, and that is the spiritual realm, of which we have no real knowledge. It is my suppostion that, at some point in time, God placed a spirit into the flesh of men, thereby creating man in his own image as a spiritual being. With this premise, I have attached a file which shows gematria findings which seem to support this supposition. I submit it for the consideration of those interested in this topic.

    76of86
    I'm not inclined to believe in a fundamental Duality, except as a manifestation of an underlying Unity. The Spirit/Matter (Mind/Body) Duality (which is strongly emphasized in the Bible) may be just two ways of looking at the same thing. This coheres with the unification of Science and Metaphysics that we get when we identify the two primitive concepts of each field (energy in Science and consciousness in Metaphysics) with each other: energy = consciousness.

    I think we can know a LOT about the "spiritual realm" since that is the realm of Mind, and the Mind is all we can directly perceive (all material perceptions being mediated by it). Even the Bible suggests this when it says "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?" (1 Cor 2:11).

    I don't think that God ever "placed a spirit in the flesh of men." It seems more likely that the brain became sufficiently complex to support self-consciousness.
    • 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. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,851
    Quote Originally Posted by 76of86 View Post
    There is another realm aside from our material existence, and that is the spiritual realm, of which we have no real knowledge. It is my suppostion that, at some point in time, God placed a spirit into the flesh of men, thereby creating man in his own image as a spiritual being. With this premise, I have attached a file which shows gematria findings which seem to support this supposition. I submit it for the consideration of those interested in this topic.

    Creation.pdf


    76of86
    Hey there 76of86,

    I took a look at your PDF file. The first thing that leaped out at me was your identity κτιστης (Creator) = 1038. At first I thought this was an error because years ago I focused on the phrase ο κτισας (The Creator) = 801 = αω (Alpha Omega). I thought this was extremely significant because it coheres with (or "confirms" to use your terminology) the Biblical testimony that the Creator calls himself Alpha Omega. The thing is, I was careful to be sure the exact words were written in Scripture, but I didn't really pay any attention to the fact that ktisas is a participle whereas ktistes is the corresponding noun. My identity is still valid, but I would think that the noun is more significant and if this identity was designed by the Creator I would expect him to encode the value of the noun. And now I see that there were four possible values for me to choose from (the two words, with or without the article):

    ktisas 731
    ktistes 1038
    o ktisas 801
    o ktistes 1108

    And there are many values of Alpha Omega I could have chosen, because different manuscripts write AO, Alpha O, Alpha Omega, and I could choose to use or not use the conjunctive "kai" (and) and I could even choose to use or not use the article "to". This yields seven more identities:

    aw 801
    alpha w 1332
    alpha wmega 1381
    a kai w 832
    alpha kai wmega 1412
    to alpha kai to wmega 2152
    to a kai to w 1572

    So now I have two sets of numbers to compare to see if one of the four numbers in the first set (Creator) is the same as one of the seven numbers in the second set (Alpha Omega). It's difficult to calculate the exact probability, but things like this undermine my confidence that anything but random chance is going on here. I very much doubt it is sufficiently improbable to warrant claiming anything like "proof" or even "confirmation."

    This is one of the primary problems I have with your methodology. It's why it doesn't seem like you are "confirming" anything but what you want to believe. If you found numbers that said "Jesus never existed" would you take that as "confirmation" of that fact? I find it extremely relevant to my own work, since in many ways I saw patterns that now look somewhat questionable (such as the aw = 801 = the creator). This is why I like discussing things with folks who are convinced they have found "patterns" in the Bible. By critiquing the work of others, I must hold my own feet to the same fire (if I am to have any integrity).

    Your work relates to the discussion in this thread in an interesting way. How do we know that the universe is fine tuned? What do we have to compare it to? How do we discern chance from design? These are the central questions of all our discussions, because we also must ask "Why should anyone believe the Bible is inspired by God?"

    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

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
  •