Posts by towerwatchman

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.

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

to unsure

Maybe rewording it might make it clear.

Here is the problem. If the cause was non cognitive [parallel universe] and sufficient to produce the effect [us] then if the cause is there [parallel universe] the effect [us] must be there also.

Now the cause of the universe is permanently there [parallel universe], since it is timeless. So why isn't the universe [our] permanently there as well, why did the universe [our] come into being only billions years ago, why isn't it as permanent as its cause [parallel universe]?

In other words if the cause is there [us] why is the effect not there also [parallel universe]? If the effect is eternal [parallel universe] why is the cause not eternal [us]?

Answer to this problem must be that the cause is a personal being with freedom of the will.

His creating the universe is a free act independent of any prior condition.

So His act of creating can be something spontaneous and new.

So in my view, then, God existing alone without the universe is changeless and timeless.

His free act of creation is simultaneous with the universe coming into being. Therefore, God enters into time when He creates the universe.

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

Crazyguy

In response to your original post, I think an atheist is just believing that there is no god and does not think his opinion means that there is absolute proof there is no God. I'm pretty much an atheist and I see no evidence of a god, so that's why in my opinion there's no god, but I'm open to the idea that there was once a god like creature that flew by earth and possibly started life on this planet millions of years ago.

Did you ever follow that to a logical conclusion?

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

Earnst

When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties or qualities, good or ill,] if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle...except the nouns be proper names, or in the plural number.
He gives as examples 2 Cor.1:3 "Blessed be the God [ho theos] and [kai] Father [pater] of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father [ho pater] ... and [kai] God [theos]..." which contains two examples of the first rule; and others including Rom.15:6; 1 Cor.15:24; 2 Cor.11:31; Gal.1:4; Eph.5:20; Phil. 4:20; 1 Thes.1:3; 3:11,13; James 1:27; Rev.1:6 wherein "the God and Father" is mentioned exactly according to this rule.
This construction is no different to that in Proverbs 24:21 LXX "My son, fear [the] God (ton theon) and king..." which is clearly an exception to Granville Sharp's rule.

Proverbs. What person is God and king describing? Notice you are missing it. Also context rules. The verse identifies more than one.

As to 2 Cor 1:3 our Lord is genitive. Very simple God and Father belong to Lord.

You may be right that the author of A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek was wrong in his understanding of Paul's system of doctrine, but I am sure he had no problems in understanding the Greek of Phil.2:6. No doubt one of the reasons he didn't believe Paul would refer to Jesus as "the great God" is the many verses above where Paul refers to "the God and Father" of Jesus Christ. All of which are examples where "the God" refers to God the Father, as it does in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.

Because Paul refers to the Father as the God of Jesus, it somehow disqualifies Jesus as being God. Note that both as God address each other as God.

Hebrews 1:8 But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”

Titus 2:14 answers the question as to how many are being referred to in vs 13. For your idea to work vs 14 would have to be plural, but notice it is singular ‘who’.

While I grant you may have a different understanding of Paul's system of doctrine to the author of A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, I think it is a bit arrogant to say his understanding of Greek grammar cannot be right.

If that is what was understood, my apologies. It is unfair of me and arrogant to rate another’s understanding of grammar. As to Paul’s doctrine, Paul does preach Jesus as God, and the Trinity.

Acts 28:25 The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet: 26 "Go to this people, and say, You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive. 27 For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal them.'

Notice Paul is referring to Isaiah 6 where Isaiah hears YWHW speaking. Paul credits it to the HS.

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.

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

To Unsure

Everything that begins to exist has a cause. We know that the universe had a beginning. Was the cause a what or a who?

Why should the First Cause be a person?

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

Here is the problem. If the cause was non cognitive and sufficient to produce the effect then if the cause is there the affect must be there also.

Now the cause of the universe is permanently there, since it is timeless. So why isn't the universe permanently there as well, why did the universe come into being only billions years ago, why isn't it as permanent as its cause?

Answer to this problem must be that the cause is a personal being with freedom of the will.

His creating the universe is a free act independent of any prior condition.

So His act of creating can be something spontaneous and new.

So in my view, then, God existing alone without the universe is changeless and timeless.

His free act of creation is simultaneous with the universe coming into being. Therefore, God enters into time when He creates the universe.

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

I sorry, there is no evidence of a multiverse. It is all speculation. It is more metaphysics than physics.

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

to unsure

There is no evidence of a multiverse. Ask anyone who promotes it ‘How many universes can you point to?” It is an unsupported hypothesis. But for argument’s sake let’s say there is a multiverse, it still does not answer the issue of the origin of the universe. All one has done is move the goal post back. The question now becomes ‘What is the origin of the multiverse?”

Since my opinion is considered bias, allow me to submit what Stephen Hawking has to say on the subject.

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.

Where the laws of physics would have broken down. = The beginning nonphysical.