To Cofty
I answered you several times. The proper thing to do is to continue the discussion from there. You keep going back to square one as if you are hold the smoking gun. Come on follow the program
towerwatchman
JoinedPosts by towerwatchman
-
99
2 Peter 1 = Deity of Christ.
by towerwatchman in2 peter 1 = deity of christ.
2 pe.
1:1 simon peter, a bondservant and apostle of jesus christ, .
-
-
towerwatchman
-
77
Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.
by towerwatchman ininterpret john 1:1 by john 1:1. .
the greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into english as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of.
but the greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the english “a”, or “an”.
-
-
towerwatchman
To Fisherman
Why post videos? Are you capable of mounting a coherent argument?
-
99
2 Peter 1 = Deity of Christ.
by towerwatchman in2 peter 1 = deity of christ.
2 pe.
1:1 simon peter, a bondservant and apostle of jesus christ, .
-
-
towerwatchman
To Cofty
I answered you multiple times on the above mentioned topics, The proper thing to do is to post a rebuttal explaining where and why I am wrong, with support. All you keep doing is reposting your original post.
-
315
Atheism = self defeating.
by towerwatchman inatheism = 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
To freemindfade
Metaphysics may have the word “physics” in it, but more important is the word “meta”. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, physics is applying math to the real world. Physics has real world applications, metaphysics is speculation. When we treat speculation like it’s science, we create pseudoscience and confusion ensues.
Let’s ask the leading expert.
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 inatheism = 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
To cofty
This thread will now proceed to many pages of Roman Catholic dogma. The words metaphysical and Sola scriptura will be repeated endlessly. Every request for evidence will be dismissed with an accusation of scientism.
I suggest we stick to the theological assumptions intended by the OP
I believe we should bring science into the discussion.
-
315
Atheism = self defeating.
by towerwatchman inatheism = 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
to freemindfade
why? because a bunch of bronze age goat herders said so? Sorry if you were being sarcastic and I didn't catch it lol
The cause of the universe therefore must be a transcendent cause beyond the universe. It must be itself uncaused, because we have seen that an infinite series of causes is impossible. It must transcend space and time, since it created space and time, therefore it must be immaterial and nonphysical. And must be unimaginably powerful since it created all matter and energy and finally and must be a personal being, only a mind could fit the above description of the first cause. And it must be a personal being, because this is the only way to explain how a timeless cause can produce a temporal effect with a beginning like the universe. If the cause is impersonal and sufficient to produce its effect, then if the effect is there the cause must be there also.
Now if the cause of the universe is permanently there and is timeless, why isn't the universe permanently there as well, why did the universe come into being, why isn't it as permanent as its cause? The answer to the problem must be that the clause is a personal being with free will, therefore His act of creating the universe is independent of any prior conditions; something spontaneous and new.
-
315
Atheism = self defeating.
by towerwatchman inatheism = 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
to freemindfade
Actually that's what theists say. To believe in god you are making massive assertions about our universe with zero evidence.
Present the following to give you feel for the delicacy of fine-tuning. The number of sub atomic particles in the entire known universe is set to be around 10 to the 80th power.
Such numbers are so huge that they are simply incomprehensible.
1.The weak force, which operates inside the nucleus of an atom, is so finely tuned that an alteration in its value even by one part out of 10 to the hundredth power would have prevented a life permitting universe.
2. A change in the value of the cosmological constant, drives the acceleration of the universe's expansion, by as little as one part in 10 to the 120th power would have rendered the universe life prohibiting.
3.Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of that low entropy state existing by chance alone is on the order of one chance out of 10x10x123 a number that is so inconceivable that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement.
4.The ripples in the universe from the original Big Bang event are detectable at one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of gas - no planets, no life. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist only of large black holes. Obviously, no life would be possible in such a universe.
5. Gravitational force constant if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry, if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
6. Electromagnetic force constant, if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission, if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
7. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant, if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support, if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
There are approx. 40 constants and qualities that have to be fine tuned, not only within themselves but in relation to each other. The probability that this happened on its own is past impossible. Having an accuracy of even one part out of 10 to the 60th power is like firing a bullet towards the other side of the observable universe 20 billion light years away and nailing nearly a 1 inch target.
What is the best explanation based on scientific observation. That the universe has a tuner, who keeps it finely tuned vs the atheist who believes this all happened by chance over a large amount of time.
Which requires more faith?
-
315
Atheism = self defeating.
by towerwatchman inatheism = 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
To freemindfade
What intelligent designer made god? Oh wait have we established which god we are talking about yet? No? OK
Who designed the watchmaker?
The cause of the universe must be a transcendent cause beyond the universe. It must be itself uncaused, because we have seen that an infinite series of causes is impossible. It must transcend space and time, since it created space and time, therefore it must be immaterial and nonphysical. And must be unimaginably powerful since it created all matter and energy and finally and must be a personal being, only a mind could fit the above description of the first cause. And it must be a personal being, because this is the only way to explain how a timeless cause can produce a temporal effect with a beginning like the universe. If the cause is impersonal and sufficient to produce its effect, then if the effect is there the cause must be there also.
Now if the cause of the universe is permanently there and is timeless, why isn't the universe permanently there as well, why did the universe come into being, why isn't it as permanent as its cause? The answer to the problem must be that the clause is a personal being with free will, therefore His act of creating the universe is independent of any prior conditions; something spontaneous and new.
-
315
Atheism = self defeating.
by towerwatchman inatheism = 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
To John mann
10 hours agoI admit that the several Christian concepts of God are responsible for undefeatable justifications to Atheism.
Sad but true.
Atheism is not a conclusion from any formal logical argument.
Atheism is just a valid denial of absurd concepts of God.It is good practice to show some support, even if it is one line. Without support it is just you sharing your personal opinion.
-
315
Atheism = self defeating.
by towerwatchman inatheism = 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
to John_Mann
True. Every Christian must be an atheist depending on conflicting concepts of God. There are several concepts of God in Christianity that doesn't make any sense at all. The concept of Jehovah is absurd. The calvinist concept of God is absurd. But there are very sophisticated concepts of God in Christianity and outside like the Hindu concept of Brahmam, for example.
Unity if not uniformity. Yes there many Christian denomination, and they all do not agree on many issues, but they do agree on the essential ones. Does that mean that they are all wrong? No. As to these concepts that are absurd, I wish the people who make such claims care to back it up with something; otherwise it is personal opinion, and in any court room personal opinions are not universal truths.