Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert E. Hall who wrote (19807)	7/31/1998 6:52:00 PM
From: Robert Rice	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 39621

ALL< Here a lil fodder for the discussion................. It seems that with the considerable cussing and discussing that goes on in this forum there is a decided lack of documented facts regarding the Christian position. I will attempt to alleviate that by taking point by point the atheist position and discussing it using as much verifiable material as I can. I will further attempt to clarify peoples primary objections to the Christian position so as to further on topic discussions of facts and hopefully minimize the personal insults and foul language that characterize this forum. I'm sure I will miss some things and hope all of you out there take a positive attitude in pointing these omissions out to me as I have limited time and resources I will make mistakes. Now with that said let's proceed. I will attempt to outline the atheist position as I have seen it in this forum. Point 1- God is made up by men and their is no empirical evidence to support his/her existence. Point 2 -The Bible is a flawed and manipulated document that has little reflection on what Jesus really said or did. Point 3-There is no third party evidence to support Jesus existence or any of his perceived miracles. Point 4-Christians as a lot are liars at worst and deceived simpletons at best. Now as far as I can tell that about covers all the bases so I will begin with Point one and post the others as I get them done. God was created by man and there is no empirical evidence to support his/her existence. That is a powerful statement and a legitiment complaint for someone who is truly seeking and an excellent pat answer for someone who is not. Random house dictionary describes empirical as derived from or depending upon experiment or experience alone. So given that definition proving God existence should be relatively simply I experience God therefore God exists. Of course that is not a satisfactory answer to those who have not "experienced God" so I will concentrate more on the other facets. My first of objection to Godless creation of the universe would be that it defies our basic Universal laws of Physics in several areas! The First Law of Thermodynamics(Law of energy conservation) : States that energy is neither created or destroyed so therefor the universe did not create itself so what was the ultimate cause. The Second Law of Thermodynamics(Law of Energy Decay) : States that left to it's own devices every system tends to move towards disorder. Well now how could we have this fine Universe and nothing to create the order of it ? So the Second Law requires the Universe to have had a beginning. The First Law precludes it from starting itself so we are left with a bit of a paradox. Evolution as a creation vehicle for species would again defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Of course the pat answer always has been the 2nd law doesn't apply to living things. Almost all Scientist however disagree (the key might be the word universal law) "No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems we find no evidence of defeat of the thermodynamic principals, but we do encounter a degree of complexity not witnessed in the living world ...J.H. Rush " The Dawn of Life" Signet ,1962 pg.35 The second most common response in my experience is" Well it doesn't apply to open systems. If there is enough energy reaching the Earth from the sun to more than offset the loss of energy due to entropy the problem is irrelevant" . I am afraid not it is not a question of quantity of energy but of conversion of energy ,the real question should be how does the suns energy sustain evolution according to the laws of thermodynamics it doesn't'! I will leave Point one with a quote from Mr. Asimov "We don't know all that is happening in the Universe. The changes we do observe are all in the direction of increasing entropy. Somewhere though ,there may changes under unusual conditions that we can't study yet which are in the direction of decreasing entropy........Isaac Asimov, "Can Decreasing Entropy Exist in the Universe?" Science Digest 5- 73 pg. 76 So according to Mr. Asimov if only we could change the rules of the universe then we might see things build up instead of down. I think not from all we know this a universe uniformity in structure and In those Nasty Laws of Thermodynamics. The rest of the points will be posted when I have enough time and research invested in them . I hope this spurs discussion.

To: Robert E. Hall who wrote (19807)	7/31/1998 10:28:00 PM
From: IN_GOD_I_TRUST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39621

My Dearest Brother Robert, May we seek God's truth together.... Let's examine this verse again, with the substitution you make; 2 Samuel 7:10 10: Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and , no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime, This is what you are asking us to do, substitute tremble/anger/be troubled in. Am I correct? I'm not saying your right or wrong about the translation issue. I just want to know if the verse I wrote above is the verse the way you want it, with the interpretation you gave us. Now read the verse with the substitution. Does the verse still speak of a physical move? I am suggesting it does. Especially when you read in context with other passages around it and other scripture in the bible. If you consider what I'm saying a wild accusation, I am truly sorry! I truly do not feel it is a wild accusation! I truly trying to honor God and show you, and all on the thread the truth. I never said that the interpretation you point out of "ragaz" was or was not true. I'll have to do my homework on that one to validate your statement! And if I made an error in communicating to you what I meant iin my previous post, I humbly apologize again. What I meant is that changing Gods original intended meanings of scripture, by changing a word here and a definition there, such as telling us that this passage is not a physical move, is a dangerous business. It clearly speaks of a physical move! I'm sure you think it is wrong to try to change God's words to mean something they do not, don't you? As a Christian brother, I know you know its wrong to alter God's word! I'm sure of that! God Bless You, Steve PS - Robert, I'm not saying your wrong or right about this matter... But I needed to ask, could you ever make an error when interpreting scripture? God asked me to ask you....