Posts by towerwatchman

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

towerwatchman

Brainfloss

My point is, if you want to convince people to believe in god, fine have at it. It just seems counter productive to direct those following the debate to turn their attention to a genius who has studied the origin of the universe for a lifetime, possibly one of the most respected physicists in history in order to back up a claim and then discount his conclusion.

I am not submitting a lecture from an atheist to support theism, but the leading physicists to support my scientific conclusion. Being atheist or theist has nothing to do with it.

I'm not sure what your motives are. Are You one of jehovahs witnesses? Otherwise why worry if others believe in god or not.

I am A Christian, my God died to for all, that none shall be lost. Out of gratitude for what He has done for me, I follow His commandments. My post on this forum is a natural outworking of my worldview. My God valued man so much that He died in man’s place as payment for offending a just God.

Contrary when the Atheistic worldview is followed to its logical conclusion; = man has no value.

205

Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

by towerwatchman in

mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

towerwatchman

Cofty

I have answered all your post with one question that you keep ignoring.

What is the source of biological information?

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

towerwatchman

whatshallicallmyself

We don't know the universe had a beginning... We can only trace the expansion back so far after which there is only speculation. You are suffering from the gigo effect, presumably brought about by reading creationist literature and believing it to be true.

Let’s have the leading Atheist expert answer this.

In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted… But if your theory disagrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is in bad trouble. In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature… The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.

The Beginning of Time. A Lecture by Stephen Hawking.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

towerwatchman

Brainfloss

No deceit. It's just that on a few occasions in this topic you have put forward Hawking as an expert, citing his work to prove athieism is wrong. The expert you cite is a self proclaimed Athiest. If he is indeed the expert you say possibly you are misunderstanding his work.

No, if I am correct we were discussing first cause. And my point was that first cause would have been nonphysical. Supported by Hawking

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

towerwatchman

Unsure

If the cause is timeless and non-cognitive then the effect should be timeless also.

But the universe is not timeless. Had a beginning and will have an end.

If the cause is sufficient to produce its effect; then if the effect is there the cause must be there also.

But we don’t find a cause. We speculate the cause.

Why must it be personal?

It is the only way to explain how a timeless cause can produce a temporal effect with a beginning like the universe.

The cause is a personal being with freedom of the will, His creating the universe is a free act independent of any prior condition.

It must transcend space and time, since it created space and time.

Therefore, it must be immaterial and nonphysical.

It must be unimaginably powerful since it created all matter and energy.

Finally it must be a personal being, only a mind could fit the above description of the First Clause.

(William Craig)

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

towerwatchman

Brainfloss

probably best not to quote him to prove existance of god.

What there any deceit in the quote?

205

Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

by towerwatchman in

mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

towerwatchman

Whatshallicallmyself

So you believe I can take 1 step but cannot accept I can walk across town... That about sums up your comment.

I believe you can do that.

I don't believe a chimp can take 1 step and when he is done walking across town he somehow becomes a man

99

2 Peter 1 = Deity of Christ.

by towerwatchman in

2 peter 1 = deity of christ.

2 pe.

1:1 simon peter, a bondservant and apostle of jesus christ, .

towerwatchman

So Granville Sharp's rule has exceptions. This is one of them.

No it does not apply. In Titus God and Savior are describing Jesus. What is God and king describing in Proverbs? For the rule to apply God and king have to be describing someone. Read the rule again.

t disqualifies Jesus as being the God (ho theos), and Hebrews 1:8 can also be translated : To the Son He says: "God (ho theos) is your throne forever and ever..." which is more in context with the subsequent verse that God (ho theos), your God (ho theos sou), has anointed you with oil of gladness...

Both verses, three occurrences of theos carries the definite article [ho]. There is no ‘that’ in the equation. The use of ‘that’ would make both ‘theos’ in vs 9 third person. The Father would be pointing our some unknown as God. That would be polytheistic.

On the contrary, it was not the great God "who gave himself for us" in Titus 2:14, but it was "our Saviour Christ Jesus". Notice it is singular 'who.

Is that what Paul is communicating?

Titus 1:4 To Titus, a true son in our common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior.

In Titus 1:4 the Father is identified as God, and Jesus is identified as Lord and Savior.

Tit 1:3 but has in due time manifested His word through preaching, which was committed to me according to the commandment of God our Savior;

Tit 2:10 not pilfering, but showing all good fidelity, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things.

In 1:3 and 2:10 the individual identified as God is also the Savior, or the individual identified as Savior is also God. Can the question be answered?

Tit 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

In 2:13 Jesus is identified as God and Savior.

Do we have contradictions here? Is Paul being polytheistic? Or could there be another answer?

1:4 Father is God and Jesus is Lord and Savior,

1:3 and 2:10 God is Savior,

2:13 Jesus is God and Savior.

Reconcile.

205

Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

by towerwatchman in

mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

towerwatchman

Cofty

Come back when you want to discuss science and not my character.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

towerwatchman

stephenmyers

Scientists have proven that evolution is a fact.

The scientific method is an orderly method used by scientist to solve problems, in which a recognized problem is subjected to thorough investigation, and the resulting facts and observations are analyzed, formulated in the hypothesis, and subjected to verification by means of experiments and further observation.

Has anyone observed the evolution of a species? Charles Darwin did little experimental science. He did make several descriptive studies of barnacles and worms and some experimental studies about how species spread through seed dispersal and other processes. Yet his masterpiece, [On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection] contains neither a single mathematical equation nor any report of original experimental research. What we have is micro evolution [the beaks of finches changing size and shape] passed as proof of macro evolution [man evolving from a chimp].

I don't understand what you mean that evolution is metaphysical.

Metaphysics = the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

Since there is no evidence for macro evolution or the neo Darwinian theory of first life it becomes more philosophical than science.

Do you not think that natural selection occurs in living things? If not why not?

The theory of Natural Selection promotes that the species that survives is the fittest, and the fittest is the species that survives. What does Natural Selection identify as the determining factor of the survival of the fittest? Whatever gave the surviving form the edge over the extinct on is the determining factor[s]. Since Natural Selection has become an all-purpose explanation of anything and everything, it becomes an explanation of nothing. Just about any characteristic can be either advantageous or dis advantageous depending upon the surrounding environmental conditions the subject is found.

Based on the species thriving we can assume a characteristic to be advantageous to it, but in most cases it is impossible to identify the advantage independently of the outcome; therefore any advantage can also be a disadvantage. Simply put, the historical record only confirms one advantage, success in reproduction. Following Natural Selection, the individual which reproduce the most offspring must have the qualities required for producing the most offspring, or the fittest individuals in a population.