Printable View
And I am still curious what you have to say in regards to the idea of a pantheon-esque setting?
God doesnt mis-speak, and God does everything for a reason. What was his reason for specifically stating "other gods" and not "false gods"? Its such a drastic difference in what that commandment means.
That question was from the Christians on Board? thread that was closed prematurely.Quote:
Do you personally feel that a good action done by someone of a one religion or belief system is any more or less good then the exact same action being done by another religion or belief system? If so, why?
Just curious nature, on what you think about the subject? Is a good action by a christian more or less good then the same good action by someone else of a different religion? Assuming a person who lived a life just as good, or possibly better then a christian.. would they be accepted into heaven? If they followed all of God's laws and teachings, without following God, or having ever known of God, would they still be sent to hell, or purgatory?
Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
StaurmQuote:
It's easy to discredit. Especially when Prigonine himself addmited it was not an obstacle to the second law.
Scientists had hoped that â??chaos physicsâ?? would have somehow allowed the universe to be seen as â??creativeâ?? of its own complexity in spite of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (the law of universal decay), but no such fulfillment ever occured. We recognise the type of information contained in living things and it is subject to the second law. The fact is that the type of order that is recognised by chaos theory is totally unrelated to the information contained in life.Quote:
In what way is it an obstacle to the second law? So far as I understand it is not in conflict with the 3 laws of thermodynamics whatsoever, rather thermodynamics failed to accomodate the phenomenon within the boundaries of the rules it laid forth. These laws failed to describe or explain the existence of life within the universe, they pertained to the idea that at sometime in the future the workings of the organism would eventually be explained through mechanics at a level of complexity not yet surpassed by the human mind, and things transpired they were right!, only the scietific community seems thus far largely dismissive of Prigogine's theory since (as yet) there seems to be no way to capitalise on it.
It looks like chaos theory may become a useful tool in weather forecasting.
The laws of thermodynamics were never meant to show a materialistic mechanism for the existence of life. A person with a materialistic bias may refuse to consider an creator and organizer outside of the universe, which the second law points to because of the universes inability to form life on it's own. We observe the formation of life all around us. There are many examples to point to that show that it uses a special "path of least resistance" that cannot otherwise be made through natural laws, rather by itself information and life are subject to degredation and there is no more evidence needed to make a conclusion. It's a straw man arguement saying that choas theory is not in conflict with the laws of thermodynamics. Of course it's not because chaos theory has nothing to do with the formation of life. It has to do with (one of the things it has to do with) the discovery of unsuspected patterns of harmony in apparently chaotic systems. It actually follows a path of entropy and does the opposite that life does. For example, there is believed to be a superstructure of some predictability in the otherwise unpredictable behaviour of water flowing turbulently. Scientists use the word â??chaosâ?? to indicate simple things that behave in complicated and unexpected waysâ??things that surprise us and confound our ability to predict how they will behave in the future.
Evolutionists argue that life is nothing but chemicals, but then they claim that living things are exceptions to the laws of thermodynamics that describe the behaviour of chemicals. I believe this shows the inconsistency of this materialistic belief .
Hey look whatever you want to call them, they are three different concepts that can be scientifically differentiated.Quote:
Staurm:Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
There is order, and then there is complexity. Randomness, order, and compexity are three seperate things.
No they aren't, you fail to realise the subjective and paradoxical nature of science. This is where the real beauty and spiritual side of scientific study lies, the realisation that we are in fact intrinsically incapable of fully understanding ourselves because basically we are the process of understanding. There is arguably no such thing as randomness, as Einstein once said prophetically, God does not play dice".
All I can say at the moment....
Life is characterized by high specified complexity. The leading evolutionary origin-of-life researcher, Leslie Orgel, confirmed this:
When it comes to life's complexity, it has specifc semantic characteristics that wholly set it apart from the order we otherwise find in the natural universe. Proteins and DNA are non-random aperiodic (irregular) sequences. The sequences are not caused by the properties of the constituent amino acids and nucleotides themselves. This is a huge contrast to crystal structures or other fractal patterns recognized by chaos theory , which are caused by the properties of their constituents.Quote:
Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.
This is why I wanted you to study that book or the movie, I pointed out. Information theory is not simple. the basic point is that there is a quantative measure of information, and also a qualative measure of information. As to the qualative, there are 5 levels neccesary to understand it's nature : statistical, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.
It will help very much to recognise the difference between information and randomness once the attributes of information are.
Here is a summarizing portion in this article which I insist you read at least to understand the nature of information.
The most important empirical principles relating to the concept of information have been defined in the form of theorems. Here is a brief summary of them:
Quote:
1.No information can exist without a code.
2.No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.
3. No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics.
4.No information can exist in purely statistical processes.
5.No information can exist without a transmitter.
6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
7.No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
8.No information can exist without a will.
Information, science and biology
I also recognise that what we see as randomness may be also in fact ordered by a creator. In fact, if God exists it would have to be. But there is a great difference between the order in nature and the order and complexity in living things.
I think somebody needs to check out God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs and see how they can refute that.
kai as a kite:
That's not what this thread is about and that's very unreasonable. It's not my purpose here to disarm every single objection there is to God. I don't have a problem with dealing with objections as long as they are directly relevant to this thread, but otherwise forget it.Quote:
I think somebody needs to check out God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs and see how they can refute that.
All I have to do is show a single valid logical path to God. It's not necessary for me to disprove all of those.
And how would you like it if somebody did that to you, elephant hurler.
Imitator:
This is just totally rediculous. He never says "actual living Gods that I don't want you to worship". He only says " Thou shalt have no other gods before me. ". And from this you read into it to mean he's referring to actual other Gods. If he's telling people who worship dumb idols as Gods, then this makes perfect sense. And in the next verses, he actually does refer to these graven images:Quote:
And I am still curious what you have to say in regards to the idea of a pantheon-esque setting?
God doesnt mis-speak, and God does everything for a reason. What was his reason for specifically stating "other gods" and not "false gods"? Its such a drastic difference in what that commandment means.
Quote:
4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
There is absolutely no place of inference to assert he was in any way referring to actual Gods. The context does not allow it not only in this passage, but throughout this book and the whole bible he consistantly refers to these Gods as false gods, abominations constructed by the hands of men which have no life in them. He also clearly states there are no other Gods beside him numerous times throughout scripture:
etc. etc. etc. etc.Quote:
Deuteronomy 4:35
35Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him.
Deuteronomy 4:39
9Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.
Deuteronomy 32:39
39See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.
2 Samuel 7:22
22Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God: for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.
2 Samuel 22:32
32For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a rock, save our God?
1 Kings 8:60
60That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else.
Isaiah 43
10Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
11I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
Isaiah 44:6
6Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Isaiah 44
8Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.
I already went over a "pantheon-esque" setting in my original post. If you have any objections, feel free to post them with references.
first of all, without faith noone can please God:Quote:
Imitator:
That question was from the Christians on Board? thread that was closed prematurely.Quote:
Quote:
Do you personally feel that a good action done by someone of a one religion or belief system is any more or less good then the exact same action being done by another religion or belief system? If so, why?
Just curious nature, on what you think about the subject? Is a good action by a christian more or less good then the same good action by someone else of a different religion? Assuming a person who lived a life just as good, or possibly better then a christian.. would they be accepted into heaven? If they followed all of God's laws and teachings, without following God, or having ever known of God, would they still be sent to hell, or purgatory?
Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. But his faith was proven through his obedience, and faith without works is dead.Quote:
Hebrews 11
6But 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.
Noone can follow all of God's teachings without faith. The most important commandment also, is to Love the Lord God with all your heart, mind,soul, and strength. How can you love someone you do not recognise, or do not believe in? You can't. THis is the most terrible crime, to not love God.
But some might say they do love God. But Jesus points out that if you love God's commandments, that is his righteousness, then you will in effect be drawn to God by your acceptance of his eternal nature.
This is actually the only way you can come to God. It always begins with his righteousness. If they really did love his righteousness, then they would be drawn to him and become Christians.Quote:
John 14
21He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
22Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
23Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
furthermore, yes non Christians can do good works with an outward appearance. They can even feel good about them by the recognition of their conscience. But just like a beautiful woman with an evil heart can give a gentle and tender hug and feel good about it, the unsaved person cannot bear the true Spiritual fruit of righteousness. Without God their Love is incomplete, a mere superficial and tainted reflection of the nature of God. To bring forth Spiritual fruit, you must have God's Spirit working in you and have a true and perfect recognition of his nature.
To a Truth, God's Love is not the Love of this world. God's righteousness is not the righteousness of this world. In feeling, in power, in nature it is greater than that which is of this world, which is in the corrupted minds of men. That is why they are called "dead works". Because they are not done in the Spirit of love, and are worthless to both the purpose of righteousness and sanctification.Quote:
4Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
5I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
And besides that,
You can't go to heaven unless your sins are accounted for. There is no other way for this to happen except through faith in Jesus Christ. The same Faith which saves, is the same faith which brings access to the grace which works in those who are saved to bring forth spiritual fruit and perfection. Sinners are under the power of the devil, and they cannot overcome the lusts of the flesh on thier own.
So it's just as Jesus says:
Quote:
John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Noone can live any more perfectly than a Christian. A sinner cannot even externally live up to the Christian standard. Thier whole being is continually drawn into sin. A True Christian does not sin . When they stumble, it is because this body is sold under sin, and we fight and war against it until we are given new Spiritual bodies.
Oh, and there is no purgatory.
NatureisAwesome I don't have time to read your last retort but I just watned to add have you ever considered that the dissipative structures which organisms adopt in order to harness energy from somewhere might in fact trascend 4 dimensional space and time? Its all based on topology and strange attractors. I dunno I think we are probably both arguing the same toss of the coin. Are you aware also that Capra, someone you seem to also dismiss readilly, has written a paper on the parallels between science and christianity? (I've not read it though)
We did, and then you said No, it's not the case. You have no reason to believe it.Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
We have shown evidence which you choose to reject, but when we disagree with your evidence, it's because we refuse to see the truth.
If you blast us with a lot of information, it's the truth. If we blast you with a lot of information, it's unfair and elephant hurling.
When you make assumptions, yours are correct. When we make assumptions, we need to back them up.
When we question your sources, you say it's because the creation scientists are being discriminated against in biased evaluations. When you question our sources, it's because our sources are corrupt, and we believe in them like bland religion.
Have fun with the thread.
Hardcore Newbie:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome View Post
I already went over a "pantheon-esque" setting in my original post. If you have any objections, feel free to post them with references.
I'm not sure what your referring to. The logical path I explained in my original post to show a pantheon scenario as invalid was never actually adressed.Quote:
We did, and then you said No, it's not the case. You have no reason to believe it.
I reject it because it's shown to be invalid.Quote:
We have shown evidence which you choose to reject, but when we disagree with your evidence, it's because we refuse to see the truth.
I don't post "50 reasons why God is true". People bring up objections which require more than a few sentences to respond. That's not elephant hurling.Quote:
If you blast us with a lot of information, it's the truth. If we blast you with a lot of information, it's unfair and elephant hurling.
I do back up my assumptions. and Axioms are far from being any everyday asumptions that people make. You can call anything an assumption. In reality, axioms such as "you are thinking" are only remotely called assumptions for the sake of arguement. Nomatter how well you know something you can always deny it, even when it doesn't make sense.Quote:
When you make assumptions, yours are correct. When we make assumptions, we need to back them up.
I havn't discredited anyones sources like mine have been. I disccredit information because it is proven to be fallacious.Quote:
When we question your sources, you say it's because the creation scientists are being discriminated against in biased evaluations. When you question our sources, it's because our sources are corrupt, and we believe in them like bland religion.
Have fun with the thread.
I'm being attacked with so many false accusations there's no room for me to justifiy myself. I suppose people will think what will.