Can we trust what God says?

[Mr. Black]

Doesn't Mr. Black realize that God's signature would have to be seen in parasites and deadly microorganisms, as well as in butterflies?

The created order, however cursed and corrupted from Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden, everywhere and all the time reveals the knowledge of God to man.

The "signature" apologetic fails.

Nice try.

[whag]

Well I'm interested in God's opinion of me and not yours.

What does he think of you if you're afraid of his general revelation?

And the God of scripture is my God not "science." Which is continual flux and changeable.

Science isn't changeable. Our discoveries add to our knowledge, but the processes that form stars and erode mountains are regular and constant. How can you be so ignorant of this?

And I never said that science should close shop, I'm in the electronics field, and use principles like ohms laws every day. So science and inductive reasoning can be useful. But because of the changeable nature of science and our limited understanding of the facts never put "science" over scripture. Why should I? And I don't believe in a finite universe because "science says" but because God says...

By saying human beings are ultimately ignorant about geology and cosmology, you're saying research in those fields is futile. Even more, you insult the intelligence of cosmologists and geologists whose careers are rooted in studying long processes (like seafloor spread and stellar mechanics) are just as important to them as yours is to you.

You better hope you never get cornered by a geologist or astronomer, because they'll deeply embarrass you.

[whag]

Yes.

I don't follow you. Adam created asteroids and cacti?

[NormATive]

I don't follow you. Adam created asteroids and cacti?

C'mon, Whag! Dont be silly; only the sinful cacti and asteroids.

NORM

[Mr. Black]

I don't follow you. Adam created asteroids and cacti?

You've conflated calamity (an occurrence, which does not exist autonomously, apart from circumstance) with objects involved in calamities.

Given your admission that your senses could be deceiving you, how do you know that asteroids and cacti exist?

[whag]

You've conflated calamity (an occurrence, which does not exist autonomously, apart from circumstance) with objects involved in calamities.

All natural calamities involves "objects." What kind of calamities are you talking about (that Adam is specifically is responsible for)--the objectless ones?

Given your admission that your senses could be deceiving you, how do you know that asteroids and cacti exist?

I'm comfortable with cacti possibly being an illusion so long as I can avoid sitting on one. With regards to deep time and evolution, so long as those two things illuminate my understanding of biology, cosmology, and the earth sciences, their possible non-existence doesn't negate the benefit of accepting them as real things.

So you don't keep asking that inane question, let's agree, for the sake of argument, we live in the Matrix. Now explain what you meant by calamities being Adam's creation.

[whag]

C'mon, Whag! Dont be silly; only the sinful cacti and asteroids.

NORM

Surely, only scorpions can come from Satan's bottom. Jesus would never design such a thing. =P

[JimL]

Please note that this is not an answer to my question. I asked for a definition of what you meant by "presupposition", and you offered what you believe to be an example. Two different things. Please define what you mean by "presupposition".

I know what a presupposition is friend. The example should more than suffice. Your presupposition of Gods existence is not warranted as an antecedent to your presumption that man can not know anything without God. Both are naught but unfounded assertions that act to reinforce each other though neither carry any force on there own. If you presuppers have your own special definition then lets hear it.

And in the Christian worldview we would expect such behavior. When God tells me that (1) you already know Him in your heart of hearts, and that (2) you suppress that truth in unrighteousness, then why should I believe you when you tell me that you don't?

Sorry Mr. Black, but as Joe Biden would say, that is just so much Malarky. First off, God never told you that, the men who wrote the Bible told you that God told you that. You believe those men of course, but God never told you that. When I say that I have no knowledge of God, I am not suppressing anything in unrighteousness. In fact i would say that you are being the unrighteous, not to mention arrogant one, for professing to know God and the hearts of men who don't believe as you do.

It's always been known.

Nice dodge! I asked when was this general revelation, this general knowledge of God, revealed to you personally?

Seeing as how the subject that you're talking about is immediate knowledge, and not something that's arrived at through discursive reasoning, the answer to this question should be obvious.

Another dodge!

I've already explained this, in terms that are quite simple. If you neither (1) all knowledge, nor (2) revelation from God, who does have all knowledge, you have no way of knowing if any as of yet undiscovered fact "out there" will refute anything or everything you claim to know.

Okay, so tell me then, when did you recieved this general revelation from God? And exactly what was revealed to you?

Now, if you've found a flaw in this reasoning I'd love for you to point it out. But outright ignoring it and asking the same question over and over will not do. It's neither rational nor intellectually honest.

Reasoning? I don't see any reasoning in that statement. All I see is an assertion claiming that the only way we can know anything is through God.

God, as the Trinity from all eternity, is not biological in the sense of being male or female, because God is spirit (John 4:24) and spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). However, in the incarnation of Christ, the second person of the Trinity, Jesus, added onto His divine nature a human nature, becoming a biological male (Luke 2:23). So, in that sense God being made flesh (John 1:1,14) is male in the biological sense--in the person of Jesus and he is still a man right now.

Interesting, so God is a man or a male right now? Btw, God the father was in heaven, while Jesus the son was on earth. Why did Jesus call him father if he was neither male or female?

The question here is, why does the Bible refer to God in the masculine?
There is a doctrine called federal headship where the male represents the descendants. When Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, Eve sinned first. But it was through Adam that sin entered the world (Romans 5:12). This demonstrates male representation. This is important because Jesus was the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45). He was our representative (1 Corinthians 15:22) on the cross.

Okay, but why if Eve sinned first did sin enter the world through Adam? If Eve sinned first, then sin already enter the world, no?

That, btw, is the last red herring I'll answer from you. Please get back on subject.

Hey, you brought it up brother.

[seer]

What does he think of you if you're afraid of his general revelation?

That makes no sense. God would be angry if I took His word more literally than others?

Science isn't changeable. Our discoveries add to our knowledge, but the processes that form stars and erode mountains are regular and constant. How can you be so ignorant of this?

What do you mean not changeable? Do we live in a Steady State Universe?

By saying human beings are ultimately ignorant about geology and cosmology, you're saying research in those fields is futile. Even more, you insult the intelligence of cosmologists and geologists whose careers are rooted in studying long processes (like seafloor spread and stellar mechanics) are just as important to them as yours is to you.

But again, all men have bias, all men subjectively filter the "evidence." Then there is the reality that we simple do not have all the facts in any of these cases. Now I do believe there is good evidence for an old earth, but I take no hard fast position on the age of the universe.

[whag]

That makes no sense. God would be angry if I took His word more literally than others?

I imagine god gets annoyed by unnuanced evangelism. Surely you can understand why.

TWhat do you mean not changeable? Do we live in a Steady State Universe?

You said "science" is changeable. That is not correct, unless you mean science constantly improves. It does. Science isn't the same as the universe, though.

Of course, the universe evolves. That's what I'm trying to show YOU.

TBut again, all men have bias, all men subjectively filter the "evidence." Then there is the reality that we simple do not have all the facts in any of these cases. Now I do believe there is good evidence for an old earth, but I take no hard fast position on the age of the universe.

Can you say that with a straight face? If science is fundamentally wrong about the past because "all men have bias," I guess that makes religion fundamentally wrong, doesn't it?

BTW, the age of the universe wasnt surmised "hard and fast." The more you imply it was arrived at suddenly and sloppily, the more you will be laughed at by anyone with the least grasp of cosmology.

[seer]

I imagine god gets annoyed by unnuanced evangelism. Surely you can understand why.

I doubt it. He knows our hearts and motives, even if we get it wrong at times.

You said "science" is changeable. That is not correct, unless you mean science constantly improves. It does. Science isn't the same as the universe, though.

I mean that science can and does change its conclusions. Like going from a Steady State universe to Big Bang cosmology.

Can you say that with a straight face? If science is fundamentally wrong about the past because "all men have bias," I guess that makes religion fundamentally wrong, doesn't it?

Hardly, since I believe that God can impart knowledge.

BTW, the age of the universe wasnt surmised "hard and fast." The more you imply it was arrived at suddenly and sloppily, the more you will be laughed at by anyone with the least grasp of cosmology.

Whag, how can I make this more clear - I don't care what men think or if they mock me. Their opinion is meaningless.

[shunyadragon]

I mean that science can and does change its conclusions. Like going from a Steady State universe to Big Bang cosmology.

Thanks for the compliment that science does change when new information is available to stay in conformity with the Law of non-contradiction.

[whag]

I doubt it. He knows our hearts and motives, even if we get it wrong at times.

It's good you acknowledge that god doesn't condemn if he knows our motives. My motive is to get you to stop looking pig ignorant on the matter of epistemology. You're not getting how it works.

I mean that science can and does change its conclusions. Like going from a Steady State universe to Big Bang cosmology.

Yes, but you're saying we can't conclude anything because we're too ignorant. You're saying research is futile because we can never know for certain that continents drift slowly or that supernova create the heavy elements. That's idiotic.

Hardly, since I believe that God can impart knowledge.

Which he does by way of the general revelation that you unjustifiably reject.

Whag, how can I make this more clear - I don't care what men think or if they mock me. Their opinion is meaningless.

Your evangelism is fruitless if you can't show that you've processed the general revelation. You better start caring for the sake of the souls you pretend to care about.

[JimL]

I mean that science can and does change its conclusions. Like going from a Steady State universe to Big Bang cosmology.

Science never concluded a steady state universe, that was merely a hypothesis held by some. How could science conclude that? Einstein actually tried to make the universe a steady state by inserting a hypothetical, not an observed, cosmological constant, showing a steady state to be possible, but it was actual science, Hubble's observation of an expanding universe, that proved him wrong.

[Mr. Black]

All natural calamities involves "objects." What kind of calamities are you talking about (that Adam is specifically is responsible for)--the objectless ones?

When did I say that some calamities are object-less? As I recall I made a distinction a calamity (which is an event, something that occurs) with the objects involved with it (which have existence, and do not themselves occur).

I'm comfortable with cacti possibly being an illusion

If that's the case then how do you, in terms of your worldview, come to know anything, to any degree of certainty?

With regards to deep time and evolution, so long as those two things illuminate my understanding of biology, cosmology, and the earth sciences,

Why would you want to illuminate your understanding of that which is false?

their possible non-existence doesn't negate the benefit of accepting them as real things.

Keeping in mind that you've embraced the rationally bankrupt position of praising the living in denial of reality, what do you mean by "benefit" here? And how would embracing a false view of reality "benefit" someone?

So you don't keep asking that inane question,

Nothing meaningless about the question. But I can see why a man like yourself, who has no way of answering it, would want to assert that it's inane.

let's agree, for the sake of argument, we live in the Matrix. Now explain what you meant by calamities being Adam's creation.

Are you asking me to account for the fall in a hypothetical world wherein the fall would never have happened?