Bringing science and religion together around a common understanding of the origin of life.
- Thread starter larens
- 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.
the ubiquity of law in the universe is of enormous significance. without it, there is no science. all of your reasoning depends on it.
the existence of God is not a 'metaphor' for observed ubiquitous natural order. ubiquitous natural order is an evidence of the existence of God.
this is no small point.
suppose you travel the world & from your observation of the sun rising and setting, and the apparent motion of the stars in the sky, and from these you infer the rotation of the planet and its revolution about the sun. it is not 'sunrise and sunset' represented in your cosmology by the idea of a heliocentric solar system. the sunrise and sunset are evidences of the heliocentric model.
the existence of God is not a 'metaphor' for observed ubiquitous natural order. ubiquitous natural order is an evidence of the existence of God.
this is no small point.
suppose you travel the world & from your observation of the sun rising and setting, and the apparent motion of the stars in the sky, and from these you infer the rotation of the planet and its revolution about the sun. it is not 'sunrise and sunset' represented in your cosmology by the idea of a heliocentric solar system. the sunrise and sunset are evidences of the heliocentric model.
maybe you're thinking of Islam?
Moses & Aaron are not the 'founders' of Judaism. God introduces himself to Moses as the God of Jacob and of Esau and of Abraham before him. they are called Israelites because God renamed Jacob this. this is Abraham's God, who called him out of the polytheistic land where the moon was worshipped along with the sun and the planets. Babylon = polytheist. Egypt = polytheist. the scriptures from front to back declare monotheism and roundly condemn worship of any seen thing.
as far as your argument on this point, it's shockingly flimsy. proximity? names? using the same justification i could claim that since you're from California and your screen name has "ren" in it you must be an homosexual, unstable Satan-worshiping vegan chihuahua gold miner. if that makes sense. because it doesn't make sense, not at all.
Moses & Aaron are not the 'founders' of Judaism. God introduces himself to Moses as the God of Jacob and of Esau and of Abraham before him. they are called Israelites because God renamed Jacob this. this is Abraham's God, who called him out of the polytheistic land where the moon was worshipped along with the sun and the planets. Babylon = polytheist. Egypt = polytheist. the scriptures from front to back declare monotheism and roundly condemn worship of any seen thing.
as far as your argument on this point, it's shockingly flimsy. proximity? names? using the same justification i could claim that since you're from California and your screen name has "ren" in it you must be an homosexual, unstable Satan-worshiping vegan chihuahua gold miner. if that makes sense. because it doesn't make sense, not at all.
no,
it follows smoothly; you're just not following. you asked how i know God is. i know God is, because i exist. you asked how i thought other people's experiences compared to mine in that regard. i said they also exist.
for your benefit, let me explain something that apparently does not enter into your thinking ((else you should have understood my replies)): consciousness is not explained by any physical means. existence is more than physical - consciousness proves this. you are not your body. you are not your brain. you inhabit your body and you interface with the material world through your brain. because i exist, i know there is something beyond the material universe, and i know that it is an intelligence and that i originate from it: like begets like.
when i said, other people also exist, i said, everyone has this same evidence of God, that He IS and that He is their Creator. no one has an excuse.
unless by non-sequitur you were indicating to me that you are a solipsist?
are you a solipsist?
it follows smoothly; you're just not following. you asked how i know God is. i know God is, because i exist. you asked how i thought other people's experiences compared to mine in that regard. i said they also exist.
for your benefit, let me explain something that apparently does not enter into your thinking ((else you should have understood my replies)): consciousness is not explained by any physical means. existence is more than physical - consciousness proves this. you are not your body. you are not your brain. you inhabit your body and you interface with the material world through your brain. because i exist, i know there is something beyond the material universe, and i know that it is an intelligence and that i originate from it: like begets like.
when i said, other people also exist, i said, everyone has this same evidence of God, that He IS and that He is their Creator. no one has an excuse.
unless by non-sequitur you were indicating to me that you are a solipsist?
are you a solipsist?
I am going to call @posthuman here, as he may be able to address some of your (OP's) concerns 
I would enjoy a civil conversation here about the details of my origin of life theory and its implications, particularly if it was with somebody who was sensitive as to what makes good reading for interested non-specialists.
Well, the proponents of anti-religious scientism that I mentioned in the first paragraph of my OP are quite strong, aren't they? Do you wish to be an ally of theirs in keeping science and religion separate by censoring scientific truth? How do you feel about the fact that they are out to crush Christianity?
Very interesting, to create the bridge between science and religion.... That is quite a task and a very fascinating one at that.
The only thing I have against such a thing is that the answer may not even be what we thought, I always say there is a diffrence in mans understanding of science and God's. They appear to be opposing forces but I think they are one and the same we just don't see or understand it.
The creation of the universe is just the age old question which came first the chicken or the egg? but that is aksing the wrong question because no matter which came first that thing had to first exist somehow, nothing in the universe is ever simply there it has to have an origin of some kind which is why I find the big bang theory ineffective, but if all things were created by God then he was also the author of science things work in this universe by a scientific and mathemical law some scientists say this disrpoves God but again creator of all things.
Or say the big bang was in fact true but if God spoke everything into existance it would likely be the same thing as a big bang exploding from nowhere creating the ever growing universe as we know it. If I recal correctly I believe there are unseen taces of the bang echoing throughout the universe and the universe continued to expand I think you can even hear the traces of it with technology kind of like how we have technology to hear what a black hole sounds like of course it has to be tuned to human hearing or else we likely would either be so terrified by the sound we would go mad or go deaf.
If the big bang theory is correct but it was God who spoke it then that would explain the big bang and also explain how terrifyingly powerful God is just with his voice alone, if the universe is continuously expanding which I may be wrong about but if it still is then that would speak of his eternal power and how his words are eternal.
I apologize if this was not in context with the subject when people start talking about science the inner nerd comes on XD
The only thing I have against such a thing is that the answer may not even be what we thought, I always say there is a diffrence in mans understanding of science and God's. They appear to be opposing forces but I think they are one and the same we just don't see or understand it.
The creation of the universe is just the age old question which came first the chicken or the egg? but that is aksing the wrong question because no matter which came first that thing had to first exist somehow, nothing in the universe is ever simply there it has to have an origin of some kind which is why I find the big bang theory ineffective, but if all things were created by God then he was also the author of science things work in this universe by a scientific and mathemical law some scientists say this disrpoves God but again creator of all things.
Or say the big bang was in fact true but if God spoke everything into existance it would likely be the same thing as a big bang exploding from nowhere creating the ever growing universe as we know it. If I recal correctly I believe there are unseen taces of the bang echoing throughout the universe and the universe continued to expand I think you can even hear the traces of it with technology kind of like how we have technology to hear what a black hole sounds like of course it has to be tuned to human hearing or else we likely would either be so terrified by the sound we would go mad or go deaf.
If the big bang theory is correct but it was God who spoke it then that would explain the big bang and also explain how terrifyingly powerful God is just with his voice alone, if the universe is continuously expanding which I may be wrong about but if it still is then that would speak of his eternal power and how his words are eternal.
I apologize if this was not in context with the subject when people start talking about science the inner nerd comes on XD
K
I leave all that to Christian scientists. They will defend the faith. Your help is not required. Besides you are not a scientist. You have no credentials. Blab blab blab nonsense is about all you do.
The persons who are able to understand your nonsense, you have insulted them, and you don't want to chat with them. So where does that leave you?
Why are you concerned for Christianity? Christianity has been in existence long before your theories. And it will continue after it. Christianity does not need your help.
The persons who are able to understand your nonsense, you have insulted them, and you don't want to chat with them. So where does that leave you?
Why are you concerned for Christianity? Christianity has been in existence long before your theories. And it will continue after it. Christianity does not need your help.
-
1
- Show all
Science is following a set of scientific principles. It is not about having a credential. When people print credentials, claim that anything scientific said by someone who does not have one of their credentials is nonsense, and fail to follow scientific principles, that is scientism. It's part of our living in a socially stratified society with privileges and is tied to strategies for maintaining privileges.
No one who is committed to being a troll, rather than serious inquiry, is able to understand serious science. Their ignorance then just reinforces their commitment to being a troll. Leaving them leaves me talking to other people more open to science.
Maybe Christianity needs your help. You probably have more power than you realize. You have been relatively respectful in your dialogue with me, so have gained considerable respect yourself. If you did research for a year and a half the way I described, you would have enough knowledge of science to lead people in promoting a healthy relation between science and Christianity. You would have to do the research with others to have the fun needed for success. Your power lies in having the respect to recruit others and get the ball rolling.
No one who is committed to being a troll, rather than serious inquiry, is able to understand serious science. Their ignorance then just reinforces their commitment to being a troll. Leaving them leaves me talking to other people more open to science.
Maybe Christianity needs your help. You probably have more power than you realize. You have been relatively respectful in your dialogue with me, so have gained considerable respect yourself. If you did research for a year and a half the way I described, you would have enough knowledge of science to lead people in promoting a healthy relation between science and Christianity. You would have to do the research with others to have the fun needed for success. Your power lies in having the respect to recruit others and get the ball rolling.
-
1
- Show all
K
As you can see, your thread went rather quiet. Not everyone on here is a scientist. But since you are here you may as well learn to talk about other things. Stop being so obsessed over your ideas. And you may as well learn some manners.
What are your thoughts on the following scripture? Don't hurry to respond. You may write a thesis on it, if you like. But please avoid the big words.
1Corinthians 1: 18-31
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
What are your thoughts on the following scripture? Don't hurry to respond. You may write a thesis on it, if you like. But please avoid the big words.
1Corinthians 1: 18-31
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
-
1
- Show all
I reach out to you with honest criticism and correction, ask pertinent informed questions, back up my claims and objections with data & references, and i am called the troll?
L
O
L
I sure have been on this site for a lot of years to be a committed troll. Must be some kind or record
Kim is right, i think.
L
O
L
I sure have been on this site for a lot of years to be a committed troll. Must be some kind or record
Kim is right, i think.
Considering that you are hypothesizing abiogenesis and subsequent panspermia & evolution, I have no idea what you think differentiates you from "anti-religious scientism"
You are essentially proposing exactly that, yourself. No different apart from involving an imaginary planet here rather than elsewhere and an untenable GRB seed event
I can only guess that the so-called "struggle" you are "embroiled in" has origins in legitimate objections to your hypothesizing and your aspirations to start your own religion.
You are essentially proposing exactly that, yourself. No different apart from involving an imaginary planet here rather than elsewhere and an untenable GRB seed event
I can only guess that the so-called "struggle" you are "embroiled in" has origins in legitimate objections to your hypothesizing and your aspirations to start your own religion.
There has been more than one Christian view on creation. The Roman Catholic Church has had a dual view on the nature of the universe. There is both a non-geocentric and a geocentric view. The non-geocentric view has evolved into Big Bang cosmology with a distinct starting point. The geocentric view does not have a conventional interpretation of time. Its description is still evolving. My research reconciles these different views.
