Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2020 8:50:33 GMT -5
i have no idea what your talking about....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2020 9:05:57 GMT -5
"i have no idea what your talking about..." The quote above is not only a quotation from the linked article, but a great example of playing 'innocent' by an apparently professing 2x2. This thread might rapidly grow long with similar from 2x2s and forner 2x2s. i see my wittiness went over your head....
|
|
|
Post by Get off of TMB on May 27, 2020 13:30:15 GMT -5
Are you referring to changing the subject when a weakness in the belief system is exposed? Like....Do you believe that people in other churches can be saved and you say...I am not in those churches so I don't know enough to answer the question. Or do you believe your workers could be wrong about anything and you say God's Servants are human but you don't really address the question being asked. I have seen JWs, Mormons etc. be pretty clever at such tactics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2020 13:51:54 GMT -5
"i have no idea what your talking about..." The quote above is not only a quotation from the linked article, but a great example of playing 'innocent' by an apparently professing 2x2. This thread might rapidly grow long with similar from 2x2s and forner 2x2s. i see my wittiness went over your head.... I thought it was pretty good
|
|
|
Post by matisse on May 27, 2020 14:28:08 GMT -5
i see my wittiness went over your head.... (rofl) I thought it was pretty good Me too. I thought about commenting to gratu that he had been had by wally.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 27, 2020 14:58:20 GMT -5
I thought it was pretty good Me too. I thought about commenting to gratu that he had been had by wally. It happens so often that it is hardly sport anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on May 27, 2020 22:42:54 GMT -5
I've been accused of acting stupid, but what people don't know is that I'm not acting.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 28, 2020 11:17:26 GMT -5
Acting Innocent and “Playing Dumb” as Manipulation Tactics by Dr George Simon, PhDDr George Simon, PhD counsellingresource.com/features/2009/03/10/manipulation-by-acting-dumb/Not just some 2x2s and some former 2x2s, Mormons and former Mormons - in fact many people of all religions and non-religions use the dumb act to TRY to manipulate their opposition. This board is a great place to see that game played out time after time by both professing 2x2s and former 2x2s - watch the mountains in full clear view on here. Even some 2x2 children are up top of that game, playing the ignorance of Big Birds with their doctors as if to impress the doctor with their 'wisdom' in information filtering - when it is very RARE that even a 2x2 child knows NOTHING of Big Bird from other kids at school if not regular TV watching in secret. And the best demonstration of all (I think) is adult 2x2s and former 2x2s who have swallowed evolution they were taught at public school - in spite of the fact that it defies any good evidence seen with the eyes -- the game is actually one played to TRY to gain popularity, and the ignorance will change form as the popularly accepted views change with time. Here is a good example of "Playing Dumb". Not sure of the point given the preponderance of evidence supporting evolution.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on May 29, 2020 5:21:39 GMT -5
Here is a good example of "Playing Dumb". Not sure of the point given the preponderance of evidence supporting evolution.
The problem with believing that life evolved from something is causality. Nothing cannot produce everything and non-life cannot produce life. Unconsciousness cannot produce consciousness, a conscious life had to produce it. Neither side of the debate is playing dumb, evolution is mainly disputed because it omits an initial cause that creationism addresses.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 29, 2020 14:25:42 GMT -5
Here is a good example of "Playing Dumb". Not sure of the point given the preponderance of evidence supporting evolution. The problem with believing that life evolved from something is causality. Nothing cannot produce everything and non-life cannot produce life. Unconsciousness cannot produce consciousness, a conscious life had to produce it. Neither side of the debate is playing dumb, evolution is mainly disputed because it omits an initial cause that creationism addresses.
The problem is that some people cannot or will not even try to understand is that evolution doesn't even try to present any "initial cause!" It is more that those people just can't accept evolution because it offends their feelings of superiority!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on May 29, 2020 16:15:42 GMT -5
If the caused could know more about the causer, is it possible while the caused are busy learning from the causer, the caused would learn more about the caused?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 29, 2020 18:31:17 GMT -5
If the caused could know more about the causer, is it possible while the caused are busy learning from the causer, the caused would learn more about the caused? Which came first, the hen or the egg?
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 30, 2020 8:08:51 GMT -5
Here is a good example of "Playing Dumb". Not sure of the point given the preponderance of evidence supporting evolution. The problem with believing that life evolved from something is causality. Are you putting forth a First Cause argument? Before you venture down that path you should consider that there are examples of uncaused events. Consider 1,000,000 atoms of 14C. It is well known that after about 5,700 years there will be only about 500,000 atoms of 14C and a similar number of 14N atoms. Statistically it's possible to predict the amount of radioactive decay that will occur in a sample over time. But there is no way currently to predict when a specific atom will disintegrate. Spontaneous disintegration of radioactive atoms is stochastic. Given current knowledge the disintegration is uncaused.Who has made this claim? Most start with singularity. Some questions here. How do you define 'life'? Are amebas alive? Is Campylobacter coli alive? What about SARS-CoV-2? While the virus does require a host to function the same could be said about an embryo or an early fetus. Is an embryo alive? I will wait for your response before looking deeper. As you move from the simplest life forms to more complex forms where do you consider consciousness to start? Are any single-celled eukaryotes conscious? Is a zygote conscious? An embryo? Creationism doesn't address it at all. You state that everything has a creator. That just moves the start back one step. If your belief is that everything has a cause you need to provide a cause for your proposed creator. If you propose special pleading regareding the creation of god then that same special pleading can be applied to any situation. The existence of virtual particles runs counter to the claim that something cannot come from nothing. This all might make a great discussion. The problem has always been keeping the discussion on target and not having it explode into many streams of thought. I don't know if you are proposing the Kalām version or the Thomistic version or some other version but, if you want to continue, define your case and we can explore the topic.
|
|
magpies39plus
Senior Member
WHY? Does quoting relevant scripture send the 2x2;s into sometimes a nasty response??
Posts: 572
|
Post by magpies39plus on May 31, 2020 18:10:49 GMT -5
Does it matter? Creation during phases or just a few days? This debate will go on until the end. The most important thing is God was behind it and is in control. YOM (day) can be be any period of time in the Hebrew. 24 hours is the common use through history,but God's gift of Grace and Salvation is more important...Magpie
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Jun 1, 2020 1:35:01 GMT -5
If the caused could know more about the causer, is it possible while the caused are busy learning from the causer, the caused would learn more about the caused? I'm Irish, could you type that a bit slower please.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 3, 2020 21:04:35 GMT -5
Does it matter? Creation during phases or just a few days? This debate will go on until the end. The most important thing is God was behind it and is in control. YOM (day) can be be any period of time in the Hebrew. 24 hours is the common use through history,but God's gift of Grace and Salvation is more important...Magpie Your statement makes sense iff there is a god. Evolution happens and can be demonstrated. You can deny it by claiming microevolution vs. macroevolution but that is just a word game. Your basic question seems to be the existence of a paranormal being. Why not present your proof and I am sure several people would be interested in looking at your claim
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2020 11:45:26 GMT -5
If the caused could know more about the causer, is it possible while the caused are busy learning from the causer, the caused would learn more about the caused? So, I can know about the causer and cause by.... just because?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2020 13:56:00 GMT -5
Which came first, the hen or the egg? Trouble maker, you... I always have liked my born again brother's answer. The Hen came with the egg Biologically speaking, I'd have to say there's no doubt it was the egg. Long before the hen And how are you doing these days Bob ?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 6, 2020 20:04:13 GMT -5
Which came first, the hen or the egg? Trouble maker, you... I always have liked my born again brother's answer. The Hen came with the egg Biologically speaking, I'd have to say there's no doubt it was the egg. Long before the hen And how are you doing these days Bob ? I'm hanging in there. Just a little bout with congestive heart failure in April, but so far keeping ahead of COVID-19 -- I think. Las Vegas summer is in full force and I am liking it. My daughter Heidi and her husband have gone back to work in new circumstances. So we're well set. Hi to Sarah too.
|
|
|
Post by speak on Jun 6, 2020 23:19:00 GMT -5
If the caused could know more about the causer, is it possible while the caused are busy learning from the causer, the caused would learn more about the caused? I'm Irish, could you type that a bit slower please.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2020 8:29:35 GMT -5
I'm Irish, could you type that a bit slower please. Lol! Thanks for a bit of levity this morning Speak!
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Jun 7, 2020 14:48:17 GMT -5
The problem with believing that life evolved from something is causality. Are you putting forth a First Cause argument? Before you venture down that path you should consider that there are examples of uncaused events. Consider 1,000,000 atoms of 14C. It is well known that after about 5,700 years there will be only about 500,000 atoms of 14C and a similar number of 14N atoms. Statistically it's possible to predict the amount of radioactive decay that will occur in a sample over time. But there is no way currently to predict when a specific atom will disintegrate. Spontaneous disintegration of radioactive atoms is stochastic. Given current knowledge the disintegration is uncaused.Who has made this claim? Most start with singularity. Some questions here. How do you define 'life'? Are amebas alive? Is Campylobacter coli alive? What about SARS-CoV-2? While the virus does require a host to function the same could be said about an embryo or an early fetus. Is an embryo alive? I will wait for your response before looking deeper. As you move from the simplest life forms to more complex forms where do you consider consciousness to start? Are any single-celled eukaryotes conscious? Is a zygote conscious? An embryo? Creationism doesn't address it at all. You state that everything has a creator. That just moves the start back one step. If your belief is that everything has a cause you need to provide a cause for your proposed creator. If you propose special pleading regareding the creation of god then that same special pleading can be applied to any situation. The existence of virtual particles runs counter to the claim that something cannot come from nothing.This all might make a great discussion. The problem has always been keeping the discussion on target and not having it explode into many streams of thought. I don't know if you are proposing the Kalām version or the Thomistic version or some other version but, if you want to continue, define your case and we can explore the topic.
“In quantum mechanics, ‘nothing’ is generally interpreted as space devoid of stuff, without matter or energy. The nothing of physics is not the same as the nothing of philosophy or religion, so physicists call it something different, a quantum vacuum. A quantum vacuum is empty of matter and energy, it contains no things. But it’s not completely empty; it’s full of virtual particles.
“Aha, you say, that’s still ‘something’! Well, yes, and no. Virtual particles are called ‘virtual’ because they’re not real. In a quantum vacuum, they’re as close to nothing as physicists can imagine. Virtual particles simply pop in and out of existence all the time.
"The universe as we know it, an emergent phenomenon of interacting virtual particles, of things that don’t really exist in a measurable way. Poetically speaking, one might say that the physical nothing of the quantum vacuum is filled with an infinite number of tiny bits of imagination, existing without dimension, for no time. That sounds like a whole lot of unicorns, I mean, ‘nothing’ to me."
I believe there are true aspects to both the Kalam cosmological argument and the Thomistic version. Bottom line for me is that there simply had to of been a first cause. The Big Bang may have originated a rapidly blooming universe, but even if correct, it could explain how God brought it into existence.
It all comes down to epistemology; investigation of knowledge, what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.
The greatest and most robust contribution to knowledge consists in removing what we think is wrong – subtractive epistemology. Epistemology is a fancy word for the discipline of figuring out how we know what we know. And the very best way to know anything is to eliminate everything that it is not.....
negativa; A way of describing something by saying what it is not, especially denying that any finite concept of attribute can be identified with or used of God or ultimate reality.
That's the clash between Creationism and science. Science needs to find, observe or invent a cause to validate what in reality is just speculative opinion. The God concept cannot be proven, although it can be accepted as a logical answer to all that exist. All the science is beyond my pay grade, but if a quantum vacuum contains nothing, then the physically non-existing virtual particles which pop in and out of existence had to have had a cause, even electrons come from something?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2020 21:26:02 GMT -5
The title post had a context - and I see that few posters are on topic right off, including the dumb acting Wally who seems to have impressed a few posters with his dumb act - former 2x2s at that. you have no sense of humor...just sayin'
|
|
|
Post by speak on Jun 7, 2020 23:13:11 GMT -5
Lol! Thanks for a bit of levity this morning Speak! Well it was really down to curly. I love a bit of levity there is to much seriousness in this world which brings to much stress which is a killer.
|
|
|
Post by speak on Jun 7, 2020 23:16:41 GMT -5
The title post had a context - and I see that few posters are on topic right off, including the dumb acting Wally who seems to have impressed a few posters with his dumb act - former 2x2s at that. Another post seasoned with grace I see
|
|
|
Post by speak on Jun 7, 2020 23:18:08 GMT -5
"you have no sense of humor...just sayin'" My sense of humor is not mentioned in the context of the title article ---- ho hum But - that's one of the traditional dumber responses from 2x2s who are called on their acts of being dumb. Workers do a better job of trying to turn their dumb acts upon those who call them on it - many workers try ridicule - that great 2x2 type of 'humor' - by responding (with a big smile usually) something to the effect of 'well, we cannot know it all.' And 2x2 audiences of theirs roar with laughter at that type of even dumber act. So your 'humor', wally, is doing just as it usually does in 2x2 circles - and here, with former 2x2s - lots a laughs at YOUR 'humor.' So laugh yourselves silly too - as if being dumb is not dumb enough. Your human nature must get a real buzz in posts like this.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Jun 8, 2020 2:04:48 GMT -5
Grats,
Rice. Yes or no?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jun 8, 2020 8:19:33 GMT -5
If the caused could know more about the causer, is it possible while the caused are busy learning from the causer, the caused would learn more about the caused? Which came first, the hen or the egg? I hold to the theology of John 1:30
|
|