Outside of Space and Time
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-05-2012, 11:53 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(06-05-2012 11:32 PM)SixForty Wrote:  Bucky, you can't stop God from being God.

Gwynnie said in an interview one time, I am just a girl. Your argument is invalid. Big Grin

WTF you mean, scientifically proven Biblical prophecy? That Daniel stuff? Firstly, no. And secondly, still no. Like if god said, I'm coming by to sort your shit next Wednesday, and I tole everybody to keep it on the down low come mid-week; so what happens on Wednesday?

That's right, ladies and gentlemen. It's Wednesday firstly, then we look to see if prophecy came true. Don't sound too prophetic, does it? Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2012, 11:57 PM (This post was last modified: 07-05-2012 02:12 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Outside of Space and Time
Hmmm. So, he IS an Idealist. And Three does "exist". Fascinating. God = Three. How very odd. Waiting for the definition .............................................................. still waiting......................................................still waiting. All yet more attempted evasion by deflection. "Whiney little tantrun thrower", is Ad Hominem. Not an argument. You know NOTHING about neuro-chemistry, and how brains work, and what "consiousness" is, thus "existence" is beyond your capabilities. "Ignored" is funny. Couldn 't respond is more like it. (Still haven't explained how ALL the other dating methods are ALSO in error.....waiting). You are REALLY a master of evasion. A+. And yes "she" IS going away. The Age of Religion is over. People like you can't STAND it. It's why you are SO fanatically espoused to maintaining the "historicity" of a 'non-historical" set of texts. BTW, God is a SHE. Her Testosterone levels are very low.

"Bucky, you can't stop God from being God."

Thank you. THAT is THE DEFINITION, of Special Pleading.

The, (possible) mechanism for the "universe for nothing" is known. Proof yet again you had better add Physics to Bible 101, (and Philosophy). Quoting Proverbs, and Daniel, (BTW, the fact that A follows B, does not mean somehow someone KNEW that A would follow B), is meaningless. There is no "scientifically proven" prophecy. What was the Null Hypothesis, What was the TEST ? Add the Scientific Method to your course list. Go get your own education on the Bible. I see it has sparked an interest.

I AM a threat to god. You have not one shred of proof for a god. You don't even know how the concept of your particular god developed, historically. If you did, you could not possibly take it seriously. Everything about your god exists only by virtue of your brain chemistry. When you die, so does your god.

TTFN

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist & Levitating Yogi
John 15:16 : "You did not choose me, I chose you, so that you might go and bear fruit--fruit that will last"

Lots of fruits in beligion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
07-05-2012, 12:18 AM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(06-05-2012 11:57 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  BTW, God is a SHE.

I mean, obviously. Theists... Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2012, 01:27 AM (This post was last modified: 07-05-2012 01:54 AM by SixForty.)
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(06-05-2012 10:55 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  but as Genesis chapter 1 makes perfectly clear, the bible's narrative starts with time pre-existing. "In the beginning" is a statement in reference to time.

It is a reference to the beginning of time. Which is pretty much the point. That is when time began - it wasn't pre-existing.

(06-05-2012 10:55 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Yes, we know now that that means He'd even have to exist before time, but nothing among those writings makes it clear that the writers understood that. Like many pre-science references in the bible, if the bible had let us know about these things, we would have known them from the bible. It wouldn't have taken scientific discoveries.

The bible also doesn't talk about DNA, or gravity. Does that mean that they weren't created? Was God supposed to sit down and tell Adam and Eve everything? Explain how everything worked, so there would never be a single discovery of anything in the entire history of the world? What a boring place that would be! There are lots of things God didn't tell Adam and Eve - he did give them dominion over all of creation, and I would think scientific discovery was a part of the plan. Is not the gift of discovery one of the greatest joys a human can have?

(06-05-2012 10:55 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Furthermore, the bible doesn't actually state that God created "all things in the universe".

Well, we can start with Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". The phrase used there translated as "the heavens and the earth" is a Hebrew merism. It's meant to describe the "whole" by listing it's "parts". Often this is done with two complimentary items meant to encompass the whole. It's like saying "they worked day and night to finish the project". Does that mean that they didn't work at dawn or dusk, but only during the day and the night? Of course not - it means that they worked non-stop around the clock. Here in Genesis, and throughout much ancient Hebrew literature (both in the bible and outside of it) the phrase "the heavens and the earth" is used to describe all of creation - absolutely everything in the universe is included.

There are other references as well where the bible says that God created all things: Colossians 1:16, John 1:1-3, Hebrews 11:3 and more. I'm sure a quick search through any online bible will bring up at least a half dozen other biblical references that state God created all things.

(06-05-2012 10:55 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Did God create Hell?

Yes. Matthew 25:41, it was created for Lucifer and the other angels who rebelled against God. Unfortunately, humanity decided to follow them in there.

(06-05-2012 10:55 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  How about the the angels?

Yes. Again, Colossians 1:16, also Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 148:1-5.

(06-05-2012 10:55 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  These things are conspicuously lacking in the creation narrative... as is time.

So maybe God had a good reason for not putting that part in the creation narrative. I have no idea. Who am I to question His reasoning for laying out the bible the way He did? He also didn't write anything specific about the weak nuclear force. Or venus flytraps. Or the theory of flight. Big deal. Just because He doesn't spell out every single thing that He created in detail, it doesn't mean that they weren't created.

(06-05-2012 10:55 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  You say that arguing against timelessness is an argument from ignorance, and I think you're just quick to try to paint me with fallacies. I'm not arguing that there is timelessness or there isn't... I'm saying that "nobody knows". In fact I'm pretty sure I used that exact phrase in more than one post here.

I'm sorry, but this comment here:

(03-05-2012 08:52 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  This is why God is now seen as necessarily existing outside of space and time, although there's no reason to posit a plane that lacks space or time simply because it's necessary to explain God... this plane likely doesn't exist, and God is vacationing there in mutual non-existence.

really sounds like an argument against the possibility of existence outside of space and time. I'm pretty sure I see a conclusion in there along the lines of "this plane likely doesn't exist"

(06-05-2012 10:55 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  You, on the other hand, are asserting to have this knowledge, which is in fact an argument from ignorance.

No, it's a conclusion from multiple places: direct biblical evidence, as shown; or philosophy, where it can be deduced from something like the cosmological argument (the cause of the universe must lie outside of, and be free from the effects of, said universe); and others. It's not just an argument from not understanding something - it's an argument with supporting evidence and reasons. It's a conclusion drawn from things we know, not things we don't.

(06-05-2012 10:55 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Then you argue about the Big Bang Theory being an assumption, rather than a fact.

Actually, I never claimed the Big Bang was an assumption. I claimed it was built upon assumptions, not that it was an assumption itself. The Big Bang is built upon the assumptions that the universe has no centre, no edge, and is effectively homogeneous everywhere (that is, regardless of where an observer is, they will see a very similar type of composition of the universe regardless of the direction they look). These assumptions, along with current observations of the state of the universe, were used to run the physics backwards and come up with the Big Bang. But we have no direct evidence that shows such assumptions are true, they are simply accepted as true, and we go from there. (actually, there is some evidence that some of those assumptions are not true, but we won't go into that here, since it's a different topic)

(06-05-2012 10:55 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  You don't seem to know what background microwave radiation is or what it implies

I'm well aware of what it is, and what it implies. It does not imply the necessity of the Big Bang. It simply implies the expansion of space from an initial densely packed state at some point in the past. Good thing the bible actually talks about this, isn't it? Isaiah 42:5, Jeremiah 10:12, Zechariah 12:1, Job 9:8, Job 26:7, and other places as well. God did this on day 4 of creation week, when He created the sun, moon, and all the stars. Quite amazing that the bible talked about this expansion of the universe thousands of years before science discovered it! Almost as if it was inspired by a deity who did the very stretching Himself! Wink

(06-05-2012 10:55 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  but as far as proving Christianity it does zilch. It's just another argument about how unfalsifiable/unverifiable/unknowable God is, which again leads one logically to a stance of skepticism

Actually, it shows how clearly something that exists outside of certain dimensions (in this case, time) can have an effect on those dimensions (i.e., why we only experience God acting in time, since that's our limited, dimensional viewpoint). But, just for interests sake, what would prove Christianity to you? What evidence would you accept as proof? Because a true skeptic can take their skepticism as far as they want, denying all sorts of things other people would accept as rational. But I'm curious, for you, personally, what would it take?

(06-05-2012 11:53 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  WTF you mean, scientifically proven Biblical prophecy? That Daniel stuff? Firstly, no. And secondly, still no. Like if god said, I'm coming by to sort your shit next Wednesday, and I tole everybody to keep it on the down low come mid-week; so what happens on Wednesday?

That's right, ladies and gentlemen. It's Wednesday firstly, then we look to see if prophecy came true. Don't sound too prophetic, does it? Big Grin

Did you even read the link Bucky provided, that I reposted here? Carbon dating shows the document was written in 165 BC at the very latest, likely earlier. It includes multiple, specific, verifiable predictions that came true over 200 years later at least. So either predictive prophecy was proven correct by carbon dating, or the book of Daniel wasn't written that early, meaning the carbon dating method is flawed. Honestly, I'll take either conclusion. Wink

Have you ever read the book of Daniel? It's commonly accepted as being written around 530 BC. Take a look at chapter 8. Quite remarkable that he was able to predict Alexander the Great so well. And if you don't like biblical records, how about the secular historian Josephus, who records Alexander being shown this prophecy after taking the city of Jerusalem. External verification of biblical prophecy. Quite amazing!
(06-05-2012 11:57 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  {more mindless drivel}

Once again, you ignore any questions asked of you, you refuse to acknowledge verified false accusations towards me, and you simply rant mindlessly about things that you claim are true with no support. Your logical fallacies pile up on the doorstep - should I bother linking back to the extensive, verifiable list I posted previously to embarrass you again?

Nope - nothing new from you, which means nothing useful. Time to put you back on the ignore list. But before I do, just one last laugh at how ridiculously wrong you can be:

(06-05-2012 11:57 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "Bucky, you can't stop God from being God."

Thank you. THAT is THE DEFINITION, of Special Pleading.

No - THAT is THE DEFINITION of the Law of Identity. But since you can't grasp logic, I can understand why you get this stuff wrong!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2012, 02:10 AM (This post was last modified: 07-05-2012 11:39 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Outside of Space and Time
No. Your use of "god can't stop being god" is YOUR use of the definition to accomplish Special Pleading. The Definition, (the attempted dodge from First Cause) IS the ULTIMATE Special Pleading. And speaking of Logic, EVERY use of a biblical text to support biblical assertions is CIRCULAR. Saying "I don't know why god bla bla bla" is evation. Another A+. Lots ofother questions........... waiting ........................................................................

God didn't "put" anything in the creation narrative. The sources, and multiple re-write processes are known to scholars. Which source was god ? J, E, P, D, K ? Which one ? Which re-write was "inspired" ? The latest ? The first edit ? Which one ? And BTW, tell us when each of them happened, and why. All the other crap about "salvation", and the historical origins of it, we have been discussing in other threads. The gospel of Mark does say NOT say one thing about it. Obviously it was not important, until Saul of Tarsus "inserted" it. If not, why not ? Please explain the neuro-chemical mechanism for "insipiration".

(07-05-2012 01:27 AM)SixForty Wrote:  External verification of biblical prophecy. Quite amazing!


LMAO. Dating a text is verification of NOTHING. The sun will rise tomorrow. I am now a "prophet". And it will be verified. What a joke. What was that Null hypothesis ? Waiting ........ Do you even know what the word/title "prophet" means ?

Please tell us, HOW EXACTLY, (from YOUR example a few weeks ago), you KNOW your god is "merciful", (APART from her "showing mercy"). (TEMPORALLY DEPENDENT), or do you just slap titles on things, which is the same as "the moon is made of green cheese". I'll give ya a little hint. "Existence" of your god, requires it be conscious. (Or is your god stupid ?) "Being merciful" means a CONSCIOUS entity has to PROCESS a "choice", and choose to "show mercy", over an alternative..(or whatever). It's NOT a "state of being". It's a PROCESS. If not, what does the lingusitc string "being merciful" mean, to you, EXACTLY ? I haven't looked it up, but I suspect it says something like "of or about POSSESSING, (temporally dependant), the quality of showing, (temporally dependant) mercy. Do you KNOW what "consciousness" is all about. It's PROCESSING information. It's about the CHANGES going on in brain cells. Your god NEEDS time, (because EVERYTHING about her, is anthropomorphic projection, and EVERY property you can cook up, requires time), and EVERYTHING humans know about "happens" only in spacetime).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist & Levitating Yogi
John 15:16 : "You did not choose me, I chose you, so that you might go and bear fruit--fruit that will last"

Lots of fruits in beligion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2012, 07:19 AM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(07-05-2012 01:27 AM)SixForty Wrote:  Did you even read the link Bucky provided, that I reposted here?

Yep.

(07-05-2012 01:27 AM)SixForty Wrote:  Have you ever read the book of Daniel?

Yep. Not impressed. I think my conformation bias is less biased than your conformation bias. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2012, 04:58 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(07-05-2012 01:27 AM)SixForty Wrote:  Have you ever read the book of Daniel? It's commonly accepted as being written around 530 BC. Take a look at chapter 8. Quite remarkable that he was able to predict Alexander the Great so well. And if you don't like biblical records, how about the secular historian Josephus, who records Alexander being shown this prophecy after taking the city of Jerusalem. External verification of biblical prophecy. Quite amazing!
Actually, it's not a very good book of history. That may be because it's actually commonly accepted as being written in the 2nd century BC (200-100 BCE) for a variety of reasons listed there - chapters 2-7 are in the wrong period language (Aramaic), it used Greek words that didn't exist around 530 BC, and Ecclastiasticus dates Daniel's life and writings after 300 BC. While Josephus does in fact suggest that Alexander was shown Daniel's prophecy, it's not true just because it's written in a book. Josephus was obviously not an eye-witness to the event, far removed from it by hundreds of years. His book starts with out the Jewish histories with Adam and Eve. It's fair to assume that some legends were passed on to him and he didn't question them.

While this reference is interesting, it's hardly good evidence for prophecy.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2012, 09:26 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
Prophet :
"one who speaks truth to power", a "mouthpiece", a person who "rebukes, and advises" (a) group to return to "faithfulness". http://www.torah.org/learning/basics/primer/torah/12minor.html#
Not a "fortune-teller".
Very common, "street" level, misconception by Biblically illiterate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophet
From http://www.wordtrade.com/religion/bible/prophetsR.htm :
"When this became the normative portrait of a "classical" prophet—"a forth-teller, not a fore-teller"—post-exilic prophets did not compare very favorably. By virtue of their zeal for cult and law rather than ethical critique of society, as well as their penchant for (dead) writing rather than (live) speech, they showed prophecy to be in decadent decline."

Even the academic "believers" agree.
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/bible/trevor_biblical_prophecy.htm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist & Levitating Yogi
John 15:16 : "You did not choose me, I chose you, so that you might go and bear fruit--fruit that will last"

Lots of fruits in beligion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
08-05-2012, 09:51 PM (This post was last modified: 08-05-2012 10:07 PM by Starcrash.)
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(07-05-2012 01:27 AM)SixForty Wrote:  Actually, it shows how clearly something that exists outside of certain dimensions (in this case, time) can have an effect on those dimensions (i.e., why we only experience God acting in time, since that's our limited, dimensional viewpoint). But, just for interests sake, what would prove Christianity to you? What evidence would you accept as proof? Because a true skeptic can take their skepticism as far as they want, denying all sorts of things other people would accept as rational. But I'm curious, for you, personally, what would it take?

I've answered this before, but let me give you the "clever atheist" response: If you communicate with God, and he actually answers your prayers, then you shouldn't have to ask me but rather you could find out from your pen pal in heaven. He would of course know what would convince me and would give you the tools you need. The reason that you asked me was because you also understand the need for natural means to getting tasks done, and you realize that God is not going to help you here. If anything, you'll try to win me over with natural tools (like debate) so you can pass the credit on to God despite getting zero help from Him.

Additionally, if you wanted to convince me of your view that the bible is factually true, you'd have to answer the contradictions. Let me start you off: In Matthew, Mark , and Luke Jesus died the day after The Passover. There are numerous references in these books that make it clear --- in every book they ask Jesus where the Passover will be held, the chief priests desire to kill Jesus but feared "an uproar among the people" if they did it during the Passover, and these books describe the meal itself in which Jesus gives new meaning to the bread and wine used in the Feast of Unleavened Bread. In the gospel of John Jesus is killed the day before the Passover. The historian Bart Ehrman has given a logical explanation for this --- the gospel of John is trying to push the narrative that Jesus "is the lamb who taketh away the sins of the world", so John switched the date from the day after Passover to the day before the Passover in which the sacrificial lambs are slain in his attempt to complete the circle of symbolism. But this changes the narrative in other ways, such as forcing the chief priests to wait outside of Pilate's court and having Pilate go between them and Jesus. This is a different account than we find in Mark, for example.

That's just one contradiction of many. You'll find that almost any story told in multiple gospels has the facts told differently. Jesus drove the money-changers out of the temple the day of his triumphal entry in Matthew and Luke, the day after in Mark, and for some reason just after his first miracle in John chapter 2. The gospel account of Matthew has the tomb getting unsealed before the visitors with a great earthquake that isn't spoken of in the other accounts (in which the visitors find the empty tomb already open). Every gospel has different women visiting the tomb and different people greeting them there (1 or 2 men/angels and Jesus himself only in John). Every gospel tells a different account of how the word spreads about Jesus about the empty tomb is found, for example with the women quickly telling the disciples in Matthew and Luke or the women telling "nothing to any man" in Mark.

The evidence for God would have to outweigh the evidence against. Even while you make a case of reasonable doubt, you dismiss our own case of reasonable doubt. But you have to understand where the burden of proof lies, and there's no "denying all sorts of things that other people would accept as rational". The "proof" offered by Christians is often so logically weak, and almost always identical to the "proof" offered by Muslims, which is why I draw that analogy so often. Good evidence for the existence of God would resemble the way we prove the existence of anyone else. If He really does effect things on Earth, you'd show me these effects and also how you can prove that they don't have natural causes. If you can't prove this, then you don't know it either.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2012, 04:57 AM (This post was last modified: 10-05-2012 01:39 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Outside of Space and Time
No evidence that consciousness exists in the absence of brain cells.
http://willcov.com/bio-consciousness/front/A%20Little%20More.htm
None. Therefore, no god.

Consciousness is word that refers to the relationship between the mind and the world with which it interacts.
http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2008/05/defining-consciousness.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

"have" v.tr. To be in possession of

omniscient

adj
1. having infinite knowledge or understanding
2. having very great or seemingly unlimited knowledge


knowl·edge, noun, "information and skills acquired through experience or education
liv·ing adj.The condition or action of maintaining life.


rant·ing,v. intr. to speak or write in an angry or violent manner; rave. Violent or extravagant speech or writing.
tan·trum, noun, a violent demonstration of rage or frustration; a sudden burst of ill temper.

Stressed personality. Perceiving anger/agression where there is none.
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/release...325751.pdf

http://www.angriesout.com/teach6.htm

Theology prerec : 2nd grade religion. One does not "prove" that which requires "faith".

Potassium-Argon dating, Uranium-Lead dating are not "irrelevant".



Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist & Levitating Yogi
John 15:16 : "You did not choose me, I chose you, so that you might go and bear fruit--fruit that will last"

Lots of fruits in beligion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: