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.
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
2 peter 1 = deity of christ.
2 pe.
1:1 simon peter, a bondservant and apostle of jesus christ, .
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.
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.
Cofty
Come back when you want to discuss science and not my character.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
2 peter 1 = deity of christ.
2 pe.
1:1 simon peter, a bondservant and apostle of jesus christ, .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
