I'll make this short and sweet in light of long-winded concepts and precepts that are obviously being molested...lol.

Gary, a lot of your posts seem to point out that "God" is outside of everything, and that may be the case, but what kind of sense does this make for us humans? Think about it, you're proving science is the Master of the Universe with your posts, you're just doing it subliminally. You mix science with religion with the abandon of a teenager, as if they co-existed out of mutual need. This is falsehood to be sure, and no amount of usage of scientific words will prove your God exists. Religion, God, Divinity...they are all outside the scope of empiricism, live with that.

Jonboy, well written post as well, but I feel you are doing the same thing Gary is doing. "Divine instantaneous healing is more than reasonable, it is fact". Gimmie' a break here, do I need to say the words? Prove it.

Andrew

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by S2Kguy
[B]You mix science with religion with the abandon of a teenager, as if they co-existed out of mutual need.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Garyj
[B]But, if the stage were infinitely long (an example to imagine), and if it were completely visible from infinite past to infinite future (which would require a big wide eye) and if every event in history (including the future) were playing at once, then the Viewer would know it all.

 

If he saw everything, then he would have known we (people) would have chosen poorly resulting in the eventual flood leading to where we are today and so on. Why wouldn't he do it differently or not at all? If he really was trying to make a perfect person then he would have already known that we weren't perfect when he was creating us. Does that make sense to anyone? Certainly not me.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ltweintz
[B]If he saw everything, then he would have known we (people) would have chosen poorly resulting in the eventual flood leading to where we are today and so on.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by S2Kguy
[B]I'll make this short and sweet in light of long-winded concepts and precepts that are obviously being molested...lol.

Gary, a lot of your posts seem to point out that "God" is outside of everything, and that may be the case, but what kind of sense does this make for us humans?

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jay Li
[B]

Gary, you never clearly explain why his knowing would not predestinate events.

 

That's a shame, because it clearly isn't.

Not if the Humans have free will. But wait, you said in the same post that they do. So which is it? God apparently needs us to have free will so that we can love Him by our own choice, but he also requires that we not have free will so he can predict our futures.

Hocus-pocus... do you really have faith in the Rube Goldberg machine you just made up to explain away all the logical evidence against God?

- Warren

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by chroot
[B]

That's a shame, because it clearly isn't.

Not if the Humans have free will.

 

Don't ever speak for me again.

You actually have no idea how I read. An interesting article usually prompts me to consult the bibliography. The interesting members go on the reading list. What do you think I do? Skim over the articles, pause at the big words, and try to understand the 'gist?' For crying out loud, these journals are peer-review journals. The authors of these articles are, first and foremost, opening the work to challenge by peers. You are expected, as a reader, to fully digest, verify, and criticize.

When I read texts, I do the exercises -- which are the attempts on the author's part to allow you to come to your own conclusions. If you can follow his methods and get results that agree with experiment, then you've come to understand the theory being described.

Why would you do this with any book -- a math book, or the Bible? Why would you have faith in something so apt to human error? You cannot believe anything you read -- or hear -- or see. Stay skeptical, and you'll be able to filter out the intelligence from the cubic kilometers of crap the world tries to shove down your throat every day.

I said quite specifically that even half of Phys. Review Letters is 'rubbish' too. To clarify my statement: a paper must generally be accepted for publication by one or more of a handful of journals to be considered credible. These journals do not pick and choose 'correct' science -- they pick and choose 'good' science. Please ask me if you don't know the generally accepted definition of 'good science.' The crap on the 'net that tells people about white holes and hyperspace and time travel are bullshit -- but many people continue to read the crap and think they've gotten an education in physics.

Excuse me? Show me the evidence, buddy.

- Warren