Shaken Atheism: A Look at the Fine-Tuned Universe

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

18 hours ago, joc said:

23 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Very soon you'll most likely find yourself in a world very different than the one you've known. Creatures you've never seen before. 'Aliens' are one of them.

What biblical Scripture are you going to back that ridiculous statement with?

Oh, don't tell me...I already know... Revelations.

What, you don't think the 'aliens' (amalgamations made in an underground lab) are out there? This is not from a Bible verse, no.  

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

16 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

17 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Can you prove that?

Can you prove that also? Provide the scientific evidence. No one can prove that an asteroid 65 millions years ago destroyed the dinosaurs. 

Can you prove the opposite? Science has already shown its verifiable evidence, what is yours? 

"Verifiable evidence" that God doesn't exist and that the world came about all by itself on its own from scratch? Nope. Science can never prove that. It can and does try tho. 

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

16 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Since apparently there are no takers.

That's what you think 

[XenoFish]

43 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

These issues are the results of human error. And even so, they do not negate the relevance of the fact that this world is designed for human life to not only exist, but thrive. 

Humans didn't make cobras deadly. Puffer fish poisonous. We didn't decide that this mushroom is good to eat, that one makes you see stuff, and this one will kill you. 

Quote

We were given intelligence to build and order our lives effectively. Who told you we were hiding in caves and huts and all that? Humanity did not come from the place that science said we came from, mindless cave men, ape men, etc. 

You are extremely ignorant. To call our ancestors mindless is an insult to all of us. Stupid people don't survive long. 

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

That's what you think 

I know, because all you're getting is corrections. You're starting to sound like another member who got himself a temporary ban. 

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

16 hours ago, joc said:

17 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

He didn't come to be. He always was and is and always will be. Nor did His intelligence originate at any time. 

So...if I don't worship him is he going to torment me in hell fire forever and ever?

That's what you say. 

[Antigonos]

20 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

"Verifiable evidence" that God doesn't exist and that the world came about all by itself on its own from scratch? Nope. Science can never prove that. It can and does try tho. 

Proving a negative is a waste of time. Using your logic, science also hasn’t proven that there are giant pink ladybugs on Pluto wearing cowboy hats and corsets, dancing and singing YMCA while waving flags that say DOWN WITH SDAs.  

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by Antigonos

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

15 hours ago, joc said:

17 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Can you prove that?

Can you prove that also? Provide the scientific evidence. No one can prove that an asteroid 65 millions years ago destroyed the dinosaurs. 

 The  K/T boundary

Thanka will check it out later 

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

11 hours ago, eight bits said:

If you think 1 Timothy is the inspired word of God, then treat it accordingly, and don't rewrite God's sentence by chopping off the part that explains what his words mean.

That's your assumption. I didn't chop off anything. The part you brought up was another verse. I had no reason to include it. I was referring only to verse 20 with the 'science falsely so called' statement I made. 

[Piney]

1 minute ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

That's your assumption. I didn't chop off anything. The part you brought up was another verse. I had no reason to include it. I was referring only to verse 20 with the 'science falsely so called' statement I made. 

"Gnosis" is not "science". 

[Piney]

24 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

What, you don't think the 'aliens' (amalgamations made in an underground lab) are out there? This is not from a Bible verse, no.  

When Ellen G. White was talking about "amalgamations of man and beast" she was talking about racially mixed marriages.

Uriah Smith then wrote in defense of her statements Bushmen, Hottentots and Digger Native Americans were such "creatures".

But I guess you moved the goalposts. 

[Antigonos]

16 minutes ago, Piney said:

When Ellen G. White was talking about "amalgamations of man and beast" she was talking about racially mixed marriages.

Uriah Smith then wrote in defense of her statements Bushmen, Hottentots and Digger Native Americans were such "creatures".

But I guess you moved the goalposts. 

But didn’t Read tell you? She has a black friend.

[Piney]

4 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

But didn’t Read tell you? She has a black friend.

And wants to marry a African. 

[Antigonos]

54 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Science can never prove that. 

When it comes to science this is your level of comprehension 

Edited September 20, 2023 by Antigonos

[eight bits]

17 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

That's your assumption. I didn't chop off anything. The part you brought up was another verse. I had no reason to include it. I was referring only to verse 20 with the 'science falsely so called' statement I made. 

You should realize that the versification was added in the 16th Century (the Estienne system which is the basis of modern verse divisions). The original composition didn't even have spaces between the words, much less numbered verses.

You had every reason to include what you omitted because it is part of the sentence you quoted. If you had included it, it would have been self-evident that the sentence says nothing whatsoever about what contemporary English speakers call science.

You changed the meaning of the sentence so that it fit your agenda, plain and simple. Shame on you.

[+Sherapy]

2 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

And it's never one with God included in the mix. No one can disagree with me when I say that, "Scientific theory," if anything at all, is full of atheistic narratives. The truth that God created the world is never included in scientific theory, but instead, something utterly impossible to believe  - the world created itself. I'm sorry but, for me, it takes more faith to believe in science than it takes to believe in God. I'm not the only one who thinks this way either. 

I get that you have concerns about scientific theory due to its exclusion of God. Read, you simply do not understand Science, scientific theories aim to explain natural phenomena through empirical evidence, observations, and repeated experimental results. As a result, scientific theories are based on testable and measurable evidence rather than personal beliefs or divine explanations.

The idea that the world created itself is not a claim made by scientific theory. Many people who have god constructs also understand and include science. Perhaps this is what you can work.on learning to critically think. At this point, You are blinded by your SDA and EGW belieifs. You sound like Will due gotta axe to grind with Athiesm. 

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by Sherapy

[cormac mac airt]

1 hour ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

"Verifiable evidence" that God doesn't exist and that the world came about all by itself on its own from scratch? Nope. Science can never prove that. It can and does try tho. 

The early Israelites worshipped your God Yahweh as a member OF A PANTHEON. That’s a matter of religious and textual fact. They also called Yahweh, your God, a “son of El”. El actually being a Creator deity in his own right. That you argue against these facts boggles the mind. But then ignorance really is bliss apparently. 
 

cormac

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

11 hours ago, eight bits said:

17 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Science did exist in those days (see links below).   

You are straw manning. The counterclaims are that science in the modern sense of the word was unknown to the ancients, that the English word science meant something different in 1611 than it does today, and finally that the whole sentence itself whether in Greek or in English clearly refers to religious preaching rather than natural science. You cut away the part of the sentence that makes that clear.

If you think 1 Timothy is the inspired word of God, then treat it accordingly, and don't rewrite God's sentence by chopping off the part that explains what his words mean.

Quote

Paul's admonishment to Timothy is very relevant today. It doesn't matter what the source may be, that which leads men and women away from God is the very thing he is speaking of. There are people who were once believers.. But who, as you brought out in the next verse, "professing" confidence in science, "have erred concerning the faith."

As has been explained to you, Paul didn't write 1 Timothy. Regardless, the impostor pretending to be Paul was not writing about people who were professing confidence in science, but rather were professing their religious faith, which apparently differed from pseudo-Paul's religious faith. 

Are you stating these are not the writings of Paul? That it is not inspired? How then can you sit and explain what he did or did not mean? Science did not have its beginnings in the modern world, I showed you that from a couple little links.  

I also made it clear to you that I often include the poetic language of the Bible into my discussions wherever it is relevant. I never gave a breakdown on what the verse actually meant. You seem to be accusing and assuming that I did.  

The original language gives us a clue of what Paul is talking about, he had to deal with the unbelief of the Jews and Greeks alike, who refused to believe the gospel.  Like men of science today, stating it is fables and nothing more. Speaking of the Greeks, the Bible states, "And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked...."     

"Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection." Acts 17. 

But since we're on the subject, you do not know all of what Paul had in mind when he said to Timothy turn away from irreverent and empty discussions that try to oppose the Word of God with so called knowledge. Which is fake. Not true knowledge. He didn't give us a breakdown of what all was included when he said "oppositions of science falsely so called." His next statement said, 'which some professing have erred concerning the faith.' It is not just spiritual doctrines that fit the bill, but philosophy and any form of knowledge that is in opposition to the Word of God. 

[jmccr8]

2 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Someone finally admitted it. The religion of science - this is your god! This whole science worship thing reminds me of a verse in the Bible: 

“Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” Rom 1:25

 

Hi Read

That is some subjective projection on your part as none of us worship science nor do we considered it a religion. If you wish to argue a position it would be to your advantage to listen to and understand what is being said to you.

Twice in past I have pointed out thst good and evil cannot destroy each other without destroying themselves and you have never replyed, why is that?

[jmccr8]

2 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

These issues are the results of human error. And even so, they do not negate the relevance of the fact that this world is designed for human life to not only exist, but thrive. 

We were given intelligence to build and order our lives effectively. Who told you we were hiding in caves and huts and all that? Humanity did not come from the place that science said we came from, mindless cave men, ape men, etc. 

Hi Read

Then show with credible documentation that man did not evolve or live in caves. All you have given to date is an unsupported opinion lacking in substance.

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

5 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Read

Then show with credible documentation that man did not evolve or live in caves. All you have given to date is an unsupported opinion lacking in substance.

"Scientific" evidence of this is sketchy. Theories from our flawed, limited, finite human minds. The Bible on the other hand, was given by the Spirit of God. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God" "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”  But you have no experience with these things to know for yourself that they are so. A person can come to the point of knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that they these things are true. But not with a closed off mind. Spirits operate a certain way. And the Spirit of God does not push Himself on people who reject Him. 

[jmccr8]

5 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

"Scientific" evidence of this is sketchy. Theories from our flawed, limited, finite human minds. The Bible on the other hand, was given by the Spirit of God. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God" "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”  But you have no experience with these things to know for yourself that they are so. A person can come to the point of knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that they these things are true. But not with a closed off mind. Spirits operate a certain way. And the Spirit of God does not push Himself on people who reject Him. 

Hi Read 

The only one here with a closed mind is you. Many scientists are Christian are you denying their efforts? 

You do not have the mental plastisity to understand anything outside of a few hundred pages of religious doctrine. I have to wonder you use a computer and the internet which were scientific discoveries, what lie do you tell yourself about using it or the tv, electric stove, lightbulb or medicine all benefits of science?

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

24 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Twice in past I have pointed out thst good and evil cannot destroy each other without destroying themselves and you have never replyed, why is that?

I don't always read what people say these days (I used to). It depends on the overall tone of their comments. I do remember, however, you or someone saying something about this - good and evil being the same so they can't destroy each other. And I do remember responding as well that good and evil are never the same. Good is the absence of evil. You cannot be both good and evil. The evil negates the good. And they have no communion - no harmony. So when you say, they can't destroy each other without destroying themselves, what do you mean? Did I misunderstand you?   

[Piney]

37 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Are you stating these are not the writings of Paul? That it is not inspired? How then can you sit and explain what he did or did not mean? Science did not have its beginnings in the modern world, I showed you that from a couple little links.  

He actually understands Koine Greek and the meaning behind the words.

37 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

I also made it clear to you that I often include the poetic language of the Bible into my discussions wherever it is relevant. I never gave a breakdown on what the verse actually meant. You seem to be accusing and assuming that I did.  

You obviously did.

37 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

The original language gives us a clue of what Paul is talking about, he had to deal with the unbelief of the Jews and Greeks alike, who refused to believe the gospel.  Like men of science today, stating it is fables and nothing more. Speaking of the Greeks, the Bible states, "And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked...."     

The KJV is not the original language. Koine is.

37 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

 

"Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection." Acts 17. 

 "Even some Epicurean and Stoic argued with him. 'What can this parrot mean?' And because he was preaching about Jesus and the Resurrection, other's said 'He seems to be a propagandist for some outlandish gods'."

See the difference in your bad translation of a bad translation.

37 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

But since we're on the subject, you do not know all of what Paul had in mind when he said to Timothy turn away from irreverent and empty discussions that try to oppose the Word of God with so called knowledge. Which is fake. Not true knowledge. He didn't give us a breakdown of what all was included when he said "oppositions of science falsely so called." His next statement said, 'which some professing have erred concerning the faith.' It is not just spiritual doctrines that fit the bill, but philosophy and any form of knowledge that is in opposition to the Word of God. 

If you actually read Koine you would see the writing style is nothing like Paul's. You would also have noticed that 1 Timothy 2:11-12 says women should be quiet when Paul was praising Priscilla's preaching in other letters. 

[+joc]

2 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

That's what you say. 

It's not what I say...that little...?...sign indicates I was asking you a question.