Is the double slit experiment proof of original sin?
- Thread starter pittsburghjoe
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A few corrections, if I may, and thank you for inviting such 
In order: it is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not the tree of knowledge. Adam had knowledge already.
Scriptures do not say Eve was attracted by Satan's appearance, only that she was deceived by him.
Nor do Scriptures say Adam trusted the words of the serpent. He harkened to the voice of his wife, Eve.
In other words: Adam was not deceived. Scripture is clear in this point
Also, it is perhaps a reasonable assumption to say Thomas put his hands in Jesus' wounds, but Scripture does not record this, and it is just as likely he did not, believing upon merely seeing the wounds, for which Jesus in fact commended him
Jesus said to him (Thomas), “Because you have seen Me, you have believed;
blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
In order: it is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not the tree of knowledge. Adam had knowledge already.
Scriptures do not say Eve was attracted by Satan's appearance, only that she was deceived by him.
Nor do Scriptures say Adam trusted the words of the serpent. He harkened to the voice of his wife, Eve.
In other words: Adam was not deceived. Scripture is clear in this point
Also, it is perhaps a reasonable assumption to say Thomas put his hands in Jesus' wounds, but Scripture does not record this, and it is just as likely he did not, believing upon merely seeing the wounds, for which Jesus in fact commended him
Jesus said to him (Thomas), “Because you have seen Me, you have believed;
blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
-
1
- Show all
P
A few corrections, if I may, and thank you for inviting such
In order: it is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not the tree of knowledge. Adam had knowledge already.
Scriptures do not say Eve was attracted by Satan's appearance, only that she was deceived by him.
Nor do Scriptures say Adam trusted the words of the serpent. He harkened to the voice of his wife, Eve.
In other words: Adam was not deceived. Scripture is clear in this point
Also, it is perhaps a reasonable assumption to say Thomas put his hands in Jesus' wounds, but Scripture does not record this, and it is just as likely he did not, believing upon merely seeing the wounds, for which Jesus in fact commended him
Jesus said to him (Thomas), “Because you have seen Me, you have believed;
blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
In order: it is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not the tree of knowledge. Adam had knowledge already.
Scriptures do not say Eve was attracted by Satan's appearance, only that she was deceived by him.
Nor do Scriptures say Adam trusted the words of the serpent. He harkened to the voice of his wife, Eve.
In other words: Adam was not deceived. Scripture is clear in this point
Also, it is perhaps a reasonable assumption to say Thomas put his hands in Jesus' wounds, but Scripture does not record this, and it is just as likely he did not, believing upon merely seeing the wounds, for which Jesus in fact commended him
Jesus said to him (Thomas), “Because you have seen Me, you have believed;
blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
I did leave out good and evil didn't l😕😕😕 getting old..😢😢😔😉.
Scriptures addresses the appearance of the serpent. In my understanding it was to draw attraction to him.
That's just a guess as to why his appearance was addressed.
As for thomas this is what I sent by...
Thomas tells the other disciples “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe.” Jesus appears again, Thomas gets to touch the blessed wounds of Christ, and then exclaims “My Lord and my God!
Eve was tricked by the serpent using her perception of what was seen.
Adam trusting in his wife but then again the serpent is a point to be made.
-
1
- Show all
Interesting. I just read someone ask a proper question that was direct and to the point (so harmless) about this topic being on other sites. And the response back was defensive [why are you attacking me]?
If I may, when you read the post that led to this response of yours, why did you feel and perceive he was attacking you?
I would really be intrigued where this defensive response [originated] from.
Tell me something pittsburghjoe, clearly from quickly observing some of your Thread topic choices, you're into Astrophysics. Much of why your [subject matter] deals with matter prior/after the Bang. You probably love Neil De Grasse. The man is a genius. I enjoy Krauss' views myself except his flop to the [Soup Theory], even while choking down his admittance to the K.O.B.E. proof the Laws of Physics, Singularity, energy, matter was the {result/not the cause} of the Bang.
Why does it matter if you're being opposed on your views? They are your views. My earlier interjection where [Sin] actually originated [Satan] obviously removes the particle theory here. But nevertheless, it's your view. I really put thought into your suggestion. But understanding your views better leads me to think you believe the Creation of God was through Evolution. It's the only way the [sin particle] could naturally relate and be bound to us. Ultimately, I just don't buy that it aligns with Scripture. Or to the specific Verses being used here.
Why does it matter if you're being opposed on your views? They are your views. My earlier interjection where [Sin] actually originated [Satan] obviously removes the particle theory here. But nevertheless, it's your view. I really put thought into your suggestion. But understanding your views better leads me to think you believe the Creation of God was through Evolution. It's the only way the [sin particle] could naturally relate and be bound to us. Ultimately, I just don't buy that it aligns with Scripture. Or to the specific Verses being used here.
God exemplifies [Time] because Time Itself is His Creation. What separates fact from fiction is to first understand the English Old Testament of the KJV Bible [is not] the best source to guide the specifics to Creation by. The Torah in the Ancient Hebrew Alphabet (Moses took Egyptian Hieroglyphs and turned each one into a letter and they created an Alphabet to their Hebrew Language) [is] what you're desiring to locate. When you examine a genuine Torah, there are specifics that shows the [WORDS God used Himself to describe these events]. And when you break the Word by word of God down into the Ancient Hebrew Language, it's impossible to be a believer in evolution. At that point, it's a denial in God and His Written Word.
I'm saying it isn't necessary to ignore their "evidence" anymore. We are fine with God creating everything ..but somehow never consider He can generate history also.
God has control of all possible paths of causality. Quantum waves are future possibilities of something becoming real. God could easily handle history.
Evolution of Homo Sapiens is only generated history. It ensures the morality test we are in is intact. Original sin caused retrocausality of physical history.
God has control of all possible paths of causality. Quantum waves are future possibilities of something becoming real. God could easily handle history.
Evolution of Homo Sapiens is only generated history. It ensures the morality test we are in is intact. Original sin caused retrocausality of physical history.
You do realize Science is literally missing the connection within their theory because what they claim modern homo sapiens originate from [common ancestor][missing link].
And when you break down and reveal the complexities, DNA, is a PROGRAM, not an accident. The data alone within a single cell of too many to count that keep reproducing itself, has layers, and each layer [depth] is another library of information to overflow every capacity. Each Layer to a single cell of DNA is literally a library big enough to cover the world in Data. And don't get me started on RNA.
Even in the binary structures, Biology has unraveled a ratio of [questions] that they have no answers for.
If Science could stop death, then Science would finally understand the origins to Life. Until then, we both know they have yet to see a single cell multiple in its natural state. You're talking about 4 distinct accidents to take place before there's any [truth] to evolution. Are those [Accidents] the kind of proof you want to challenge the Word of God to from the original Hebrew Language?