TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Please try to respond to points made instead of trying to insert your pet-peeve topics into everything.Please solve Agrippa's Trilemma and the problem of the-thing-in-itself.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Please try to respond to points made instead of trying to insert your pet-peeve topics into everything.Please solve Agrippa's Trilemma and the problem of the-thing-in-itself.
I see a logical connection between a God who likes to creeate things... and a great variety of things that we see.
You are not skeptical about your own beliefs?
Why would you simply assume that there was agency behind it?Caught! Who gave the laws of nature?
The Big Bang is the only theory, it fits with known facts, measurements and observations. Of course the stars measured at older than 13.8 billion years are as yet an unsolved problem. Although they can be accommodated by some of the hypothesis on the BB and before.
Of course if you have an alternative please feel free to publish
Actually I am.
But that has nothing to do with the point I made.
You are once again arguing (your pet peeve points) only for the sake of arguing.
And you are misrepresenting what @ChristineM said in order to do so.
Not very nice of you.
No, i say in Gods realm there are different rules of " logic"
Spiritual teaching is about getting in to heaven, not stay in human realm
My alternative is that at creation the speed of light was faster than it is today. The speed of light is essentially the speed limit of our universe. If the speed of light was quicker in the past at creation, then light reaching us now from stars is not necessarily light that has travelled billions of years to reach us. It's then more plausible to say that stars are thousands of years old as the Bible teaches - created on the 4th day of creation - than that stars existed before a so-called Big Bang.
You've got to remember that astronomers estimate the age of the universe in two ways: 1) by looking for the oldest stars; and 2) by measuring the rate of expansion of the universe and extrapolating back to the so-called Big Bang. If the oldest stars are older than the Big Bang, you have no theory. It just doesn't work.
In my opinion there exists great evidence for a Creator God who loves creating things:
the great variety of life and landscapes on earth.
Landscapes keep changing and life can be found in all its forms.
Try reformulating that in such a way that it actually makes sense as a reply to the point I was making.
As it stands, I'm just shrugging my shoulders with an eyebrow raised, saying "uhu, sure" and walk away.
Please try to respond to points made instead of trying to insert your pet-peeve topics into everything.
Actually I am.
But that has nothing to do with the point I made.
You are once again arguing (your pet peeve points) only for the sake of arguing.
And you are misrepresenting what @ChristineM said in order to do so.
Not very nice of you.
Why not? What is the basis for your claim here?the variety of landscapes is the evidence, as I see it. There is no necessity for landscapes in itself to have a great abundance of different forms.
Can you explain how that is?the variety in itself is evidence for a God who loves variety, as I see it.
Do you think that the "wonder of the variety" is the same as "variety"?a variety of things is not a feeling, Exchemist.
It's an objective phenomenon that exists.
We can hear a song. We can see a musician. We can see the musician perform the song. Can you see where I am going with this?a musician who really likes to create different pieces of music... creates much.
What he creates is a reflection of how he is as a person...
The music counts as evidence for a musician who likes his art.
I see an analogy to God here.
\What do you mean by "epistemological realist"?So you are in effect an epistemological realist?
\What do you mean by "epistemological realist"?
What?I see a logical connection between a God who likes to creeate things... and a great variety of things that we see.
The unexplained part (as I see it): why does geology have such a great potential to bring forth all kinds of landscapes? The kind of landscapes that are able to bring forth a great variety of plant and animal life...
I have never met or heard of a person that is as or near the purity of God. As far as I know, all have sinned and come short of God.Only one who has become as pure as God dont get sick or sin anymore.
Extremely few humans become like God in purity. I am far from pure enough