Romans and Jews

Post Reply New Topic

Lucilius, in 70 BC, had something interesting to say:

//Then Lucilius said: 'The first point seems scarcely to need affirming. What can be so obvious and clear, as we can gaze up at the sky and observe the heavenly bodies, as that there is some divine power of surpassing intelligence by which they are ordered? If this is not the case, how could Ennius have won general assent with the words,

"Behold this dazzling vault on high, which all
invoke as Jupiter[sicut si]"

and not merely as Jupiter, but also as the lord of creation, governing all things by his nod, and (to exploit Ennius's words again) as "father of gods and men", an attentive and supremely powerful God? I completely fail to understand how anyone who doubts this can avoid doubting whether the sun exists or not -- for in what way is the sun's existence more obvious than God's?..........//

It reminds me of:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
(Romans 1:20 KJV) in 60 AD

Psalms 19:1-3 KJV in 1050 BC
(1) <To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.> The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
(2) Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
(3) There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

I have a question: how is the conservation of mass/energy a proof of God? Is this the argument from the fine tuning of the universe?? Or where does it come from, as I do not think that there is a Hezekiah 5:7-8 that says "And the LORD said "Dude, mass and energy is conserved, y'all!(9) Also, if you get really good at science you can turn matter to energy which will be cool but you'll abuse it like the depraved w*kers y'all are""

"Macroevolution and abiogenesis are bull?" Come on now, abiogenesis isn't even part of modern evolutionary theory.. It was rejected a long time ago. I wish you YEC's would at least argue against real science, rather than straw-manning crap from hundreds of years ago. And macroevolution is not "bull."

LOL. The claim that some YEC's are fond of making is that the laws of thermodynamics, namely conservation of mass and energy, require a God because otherwise there is no way for life to have emerged on Earth, as life's development represents increasing complexity. This argument doesn't actually work because Earth is not a closed system (energy input from the sun) but YEC's typically aren't very fond of legitimate science anyways, so they can ignore that little detail.

What the heck??? Yeah.... not a closed system. Stupid YECs doing mangling science.

Aren't options 1 and 5 redundant? The unreducible complexity of nature is the basic reason macro-evolution and abiogenisis can be refuted as logically implausible. I expect plenty of flames from the devout Atheists for insulting their un-god with reason.

Chemical Evolution/Abiogenesis have been and still are a part of the hypothesis.

Conservation of mass/energy. Mass and energy are different forms of the same thing and there is a limited total of it in the universe. If the universe has an age, then there was a "time" when that sum of mass/energy didn't exist: this sum was created out of nothing by God who is eternally existent. Again, no strawmen. In fact, if you want to argue: get off my thread.

They're not invited. Irreducible complexity is just one aspect of why evolution is bull, but there are many more, hence a separate option for generality.

I can't believe you are actually going to college. Irreducible complexity :snort:
Have you seen the rigorous disproving of that? Its really quite iron clad.

Go with your triuphalism someplace else. Also, if it can be disproved then it is falsifiable.

Yeah, options of 1 and 5 are redundant. I don't expect a lot, frankly, many of the atheists seem more reasonable than the theists on a lot of the topics.

I am really more surprised that existential reasons did not pop up here, because a number of people are Christian for existential reasons when it comes down to it I would imagine.

You're wrong on so many counts. Maybe in theology being wrong is the norm, but in science/math you get a F.

Always save everything awesome you read I say ;P

(sorry to invade your thread iamnotaparakeet)

Wouldn't that just be best described as a first mover argument or something like that? Otherwise you do get more confusion as most people do not state their ideas like that.

HA HA HA HA!! !!

Ah, I do love the arrogance of assuming that all non-fundies are raving atheists. Serious study of evolutionary biology doesn't really leave you with much that you can call "irreducible complexity." Evolutionary researchers have provided explanations for the development of the eye, the wing, and even the move from unicellular to multicellular as well as the development of eukaryotes.

Parakeet, have you ever studied botany? If you truly believe that plants in their present form were specifically created in their exact present form, you believe in a much weaker God than I do. The several flaws in plant anatomy convince me that they are the result of a historical process, which does not create perfect organisms to perfectly fit their environment, but rather improvises and co-opts existing structures as well as possible to meet new needs. The same can be said of much of human anatomy- why do we have an appendix? Why does our mesentery attach at the spine rather than to the rib cage? Evolutionists can answer these questions- you can not unless you admit either fallibility or malice on the part of God, which neither of us would accept.

I already gave the example of the human jaw and the fact that our teeth grow oddly; many of us require braces.

He didn't accept it .

:Kalister gets an F in science: