while there are not too many currently defending the watchtower in this discussion forum, it happens from time to time.
and quite often, there may be new people and lurkers reading these discussions.
i just wanted you to ponder these questions.
Commiteechairman,
in my opinion you have to decide for yourself what is best in your circumstances and that it is very easy for people on a forum to just tell you to leave. It sounds like you are doing the best thing you can and some of us respect that. I hope you keep on posting and ignore some of the more unhelpful comments.
interesting article from the bbc.. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141029-are-oceans-hiding-inside-earth.
(genesis 7:11) "....on that day all the springs of the vast watery deep burst open....".
.
Kaik,
You are right, just pointing out that there is a lot of water that is in aquifers as well which might fit in better with the idea expressed in the OP.
That was pretty much my opinion, that jesus was probably based on a real guy, but I think Dr Carrier's case is pretty compelling.
the first trailer has been released!
true confession - i'm kind of a geek, always loved star wars and it gave me a bit of a lady boner.
anyone who knows the franchise is probably familiar with the character wedge antilles.
I want more geekery! I really enjoyed the trailer and I am looking forward to the new trilogy. I preferred the first of JJ Abram's star trek films.
interesting article from the bbc.. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141029-are-oceans-hiding-inside-earth.
(genesis 7:11) "....on that day all the springs of the vast watery deep burst open....".
.
cantleave,
To be absolutely accurate there is liquid water in porous rocks as well as water that is bound up in certain minerals. There is an awful lot of water in the rocks below us and it can rise to the surface under certain geological conditions but if there was enough of that to cause world wide flooding then you would have bigger problems than just how quickly can you put on a pair of wellington boots. Anyone hoping for geological proof of the biblical flood is going to be very disappointed though.
I don't see anything on a linguistic level concerning the names of the apostles to support the idea that the gospels are a myth.
Have a look at Dr Richard Carrier's lectures on youtube, there are several and they are very interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMyudP5z2Xw
He talks about how the language used in the gospels directly suggests that the writer of the gospels was writing allegory not history. He originally was trying to prove the historicity of jesus but found overwhelming evidence that he was wrong in his assumptions.
chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
The only way that would decrease complexity is if somehow a creator could have a negative complexity
As ever other people express these things so much more eloquently than I do.
I'm not sure what something with negative complexity looks like but I could do with one on my desk! It would make work so much easier.
chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
Again both points are outside of any empirical evidence, there is no reason to subscribe to such hypothesis.
chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
I'm not arguing that the "something from nothing" hypothesis is incredible (as in, "unbelievable"), but simply pointing out that it's arrogant of humans to think they really have already, at this primitive stage of science, worked out the answer to how the universe got here. We don't know nearly enough to say that such a scientific idea is probable, only that it's possible, let alone do we know enough to say that the idea of a creator is less possible.
The point I was making is specifically not stating an answer to how we got here. It is also not claiming any particular knowledge since I am specifically stating that the natural universe (including all its unknowns) is the same for both positions.
I would say that we do know enough to say the idea of a creator is less possible. For example every single process that we have studied has a natural cause, there is not one process that requires supernatural intervention. Why on earth should that 100% rate be broken? There is no reason to suppose that it would be.
chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
If you cannot understand how adding a powerful creator god adds a hugely additional level of complexity to the natural universe then I don't know I can help you. We are not talking about maths we are talking about the concept. Of course any god sufficiently powerful to create universes has to be more complex than it's creation.
If so, by complex do you mean composed of "many parts" (Dawkins type definition)?
and, if so, What is the evidence that a supernatural God must be composed of "parts"???
Hooberus,
I am not interested in getting into an argument with you regarding semantics, this discussion is about logic, if you had a serious point to make regarding my posts you would have made it already. How many times do I have to state that there is not one scrap of empirical evidence for your god? My point is that a proposed god that can create universes must logically be complex. I am not stating anything about your god other than that. If you think that your god must or must not have parts that is your problem to define not mine.
