Can Jesus be God if he is not all knowing?

[irosie91]

as a kid of about ten------I read a "golden book"----about
Newton and the apple that fell on his head------due to a FORCE

Gravity isn't really a force. It's more a consequence of space time being warped by mass.

the result of which is a FORCE according to Sir Isaac Newton
F = M X a (a is dependent on GRAVITY)

It's treated like a force. But it's not really a force. Look it up for yourself. You'll see.

it's treated like a force? when the apple fell on Isaac's head---he
KNEW it was a force------proportional to its MASS -----and the FORCE
OF GRAVITY

I see you couldn't be bothered with taking the time to google it.

This equivalence between floating and falling is what Einstein used to develop his theory. In general relativity, gravity is not a force between masses. Instead gravity is an effect of the warping of space and time in the presence of mass. Without a force acting upon it, an object will move in a straight line.

How We Know Gravity is Not (Just) a Force - Universe Today

right------the origin of the gravity (a) is----according to Einstein is
a WARPING OF SPACE----by the presence of MASS

 

[ding]

Gravity isn't really a force. It's more a consequence of space time being warped by mass.

the result of which is a FORCE according to Sir Isaac Newton
F = M X a (a is dependent on GRAVITY)

It's treated like a force. But it's not really a force. Look it up for yourself. You'll see.

it's treated like a force? when the apple fell on Isaac's head---he
KNEW it was a force------proportional to its MASS -----and the FORCE
OF GRAVITY

I see you couldn't be bothered with taking the time to google it.

This equivalence between floating and falling is what Einstein used to develop his theory. In general relativity, gravity is not a force between masses. Instead gravity is an effect of the warping of space and time in the presence of mass. Without a force acting upon it, an object will move in a straight line.

How We Know Gravity is Not (Just) a Force - Universe Today

right------the origin of the gravity (a) is----according to Einstein is
a WARPING OF SPACE----by the presence of MASS

Did you miss the part where it said, "gravity is not a force between masses?"

 

[irosie91]

the result of which is a FORCE according to Sir Isaac Newton
F = M X a (a is dependent on GRAVITY)

It's treated like a force. But it's not really a force. Look it up for yourself. You'll see.

it's treated like a force? when the apple fell on Isaac's head---he
KNEW it was a force------proportional to its MASS -----and the FORCE
OF GRAVITY

I see you couldn't be bothered with taking the time to google it.

This equivalence between floating and falling is what Einstein used to develop his theory. In general relativity, gravity is not a force between masses. Instead gravity is an effect of the warping of space and time in the presence of mass. Without a force acting upon it, an object will move in a straight line.

How We Know Gravity is Not (Just) a Force - Universe Today

right------the origin of the gravity (a) is----according to Einstein is
a WARPING OF SPACE----by the presence of MASS

Did you miss the part where it said, "gravity is not a force between masses?"

semantics

 

[ding]

It's treated like a force. But it's not really a force. Look it up for yourself. You'll see.

it's treated like a force? when the apple fell on Isaac's head---he
KNEW it was a force------proportional to its MASS -----and the FORCE
OF GRAVITY

I see you couldn't be bothered with taking the time to google it.

This equivalence between floating and falling is what Einstein used to develop his theory. In general relativity, gravity is not a force between masses. Instead gravity is an effect of the warping of space and time in the presence of mass. Without a force acting upon it, an object will move in a straight line.

How We Know Gravity is Not (Just) a Force - Universe Today

right------the origin of the gravity (a) is----according to Einstein is
a WARPING OF SPACE----by the presence of MASS

Did you miss the part where it said, "gravity is not a force between masses?"

semantics

Not really. If gravity had been a force like Newton thought then it would have had to violate the speed of light as the universe expanded as every object exerts gravity on every other object but it does so by space time being warped (curved) because of the mass.

 

[irosie91]

it's treated like a force? when the apple fell on Isaac's head---he
KNEW it was a force------proportional to its MASS -----and the FORCE
OF GRAVITY

I see you couldn't be bothered with taking the time to google it.

This equivalence between floating and falling is what Einstein used to develop his theory. In general relativity, gravity is not a force between masses. Instead gravity is an effect of the warping of space and time in the presence of mass. Without a force acting upon it, an object will move in a straight line.

How We Know Gravity is Not (Just) a Force - Universe Today

right------the origin of the gravity (a) is----according to Einstein is
a WARPING OF SPACE----by the presence of MASS

Did you miss the part where it said, "gravity is not a force between masses?"

semantics

Not really. If gravity had been a force like Newton thought then it would have had to violate the speed of light as the universe expanded as every object exerts gravity on every other object but it does so by space time being warped (curved) because of the mass.

semantics

 

[ding]

I see you couldn't be bothered with taking the time to google it.

This equivalence between floating and falling is what Einstein used to develop his theory. In general relativity, gravity is not a force between masses. Instead gravity is an effect of the warping of space and time in the presence of mass. Without a force acting upon it, an object will move in a straight line.

How We Know Gravity is Not (Just) a Force - Universe Today

right------the origin of the gravity (a) is----according to Einstein is
a WARPING OF SPACE----by the presence of MASS

Did you miss the part where it said, "gravity is not a force between masses?"

semantics

Not really. If gravity had been a force like Newton thought then it would have had to violate the speed of light as the universe expanded as every object exerts gravity on every other object but it does so by space time being warped (curved) because of the mass.

semantics

No. The difference between Newtonian physics and Einsteinian physics.

 

[Karl Rand]

right------the origin of the gravity (a) is----according to Einstein is
a WARPING OF SPACE----by the presence of MASS

Did you miss the part where it said, "gravity is not a force between masses?"

semantics

Not really. If gravity had been a force like Newton thought then it would have had to violate the speed of light as the universe expanded as every object exerts gravity on every other object but it does so by space time being warped (curved) because of the mass.

semantics

No. The difference between Newtonian physics and Einsteinian physics.

Can we just pause here for a moment and admit we don’t yet have all the answers.

 

[ding]

Did you miss the part where it said, "gravity is not a force between masses?"

semantics

Not really. If gravity had been a force like Newton thought then it would have had to violate the speed of light as the universe expanded as every object exerts gravity on every other object but it does so by space time being warped (curved) because of the mass.

semantics

No. The difference between Newtonian physics and Einsteinian physics.

Can we just pause here for a moment and admit we don’t yet have all the answers.

About what specifically? Gravity?

 

[Karl Rand]

semantics

Not really. If gravity had been a force like Newton thought then it would have had to violate the speed of light as the universe expanded as every object exerts gravity on every other object but it does so by space time being warped (curved) because of the mass.

semantics

No. The difference between Newtonian physics and Einsteinian physics.

Can we just pause here for a moment and admit we don’t yet have all the answers.

About what specifically? Gravity?

Yes, and it’s relationship with all the other forces.

 

[irosie91]

right------the origin of the gravity (a) is----according to Einstein is
a WARPING OF SPACE----by the presence of MASS

Did you miss the part where it said, "gravity is not a force between masses?"

semantics

Not really. If gravity had been a force like Newton thought then it would have had to violate the speed of light as the universe expanded as every object exerts gravity on every other object but it does so by space time being warped (curved) because of the mass.

semantics

No. The difference between Newtonian physics and Einsteinian physics.

there is no difference------each addresses DIFFERENT issues. Your comment is like saying ------LAENNEC BIOLOGY vs DARWINIAN BIOLOGY vs WATSON AND CRICK BIOLOGY---<<<<<< silly

 

[ding]

Not really. If gravity had been a force like Newton thought then it would have had to violate the speed of light as the universe expanded as every object exerts gravity on every other object but it does so by space time being warped (curved) because of the mass.

semantics

No. The difference between Newtonian physics and Einsteinian physics.

Can we just pause here for a moment and admit we don’t yet have all the answers.

About what specifically? Gravity?

Yes, and it’s relationship with all the other forces.

So at the atomic level I don’t believe it is well understood but at the stellar level I believe it is well understood.

My point was that it isn’t a force like Newton thought it was.

 

[irosie91]

semantics

No. The difference between Newtonian physics and Einsteinian physics.

Can we just pause here for a moment and admit we don’t yet have all the answers.

About what specifically? Gravity?

Yes, and it’s relationship with all the other forces.

So at the atomic level I don’t believe it is well understood but at the stellar level I believe it is well understood.

My point was that it isn’t a force like Newton thought it was.

That was a point? -------its like discussing MENDEL and his sweet pea plants in the same paragraph as the HUMAN GENOME PROJECT

 

[ding]

Did you miss the part where it said, "gravity is not a force between masses?"

semantics

Not really. If gravity had been a force like Newton thought then it would have had to violate the speed of light as the universe expanded as every object exerts gravity on every other object but it does so by space time being warped (curved) because of the mass.

semantics

No. The difference between Newtonian physics and Einsteinian physics.

there is no difference------each addresses DIFFERENT issues. Your comment is like saying ------LAENNEC BIOLOGY vs DARWINIAN BIOLOGY vs WATSON AND CRICK BIOLOGY---<<<<<< silly

There absolutely is a difference. Read the link I provided.

 

[ding]

No. The difference between Newtonian physics and Einsteinian physics.

Can we just pause here for a moment and admit we don’t yet have all the answers.

About what specifically? Gravity?

Yes, and it’s relationship with all the other forces.

So at the atomic level I don’t believe it is well understood but at the stellar level I believe it is well understood.

My point was that it isn’t a force like Newton thought it was.

That was a point? -------its like discussing MENDEL and his sweet pea plants in the same paragraph as the HUMAN GENOME PROJECT

No. That’s where you took it.

 

[Taz]

What is "divine law" and where does it come from?

The people sent out voyager into outer space with a gold record containing strange images and a cacophony of sounds and recordings of the earth, saying, "we are confused and just wanted to say hello", and clear directions how to get here. Like walking down a dark alley announcing,"Here I am and this is all my money."


Anyway you can think of divine law as a more sophisticated communication, help from another world, that arrived here 6000 years before anyone ever thought of sending a spacecraft into outer space.

So basically what's written in the Torah/bible.

You have 30 seconds to figure that one out for yourself.

Anyway, you can thank God that whatever otherworldly intelligences are responsible for establishing light in this screwed up world, they weren't hungry omnivorous atheists with an appetite for unclean creatures that do not ruminate.

What does ruminating animals have to do with anything? If god didn't want us to eat them, god wouldn't have put them here and make them taste so fine. (Even though I'm a vegetarian, )

And are your "other worldly intelligence", is that aliens?

Divinely, for thousands of years the Bible has remained unaltered. Truth doesn't require updating.

the spoken Religion of Antiquity - The Triumph of Good vs Evil - is only 6 words long and spoken by all beings on planet Earth - your 10000 page book is strewn with lies and deception on nearly every page - you wrote it you fix it, begin by there is no such thing as a messiah, sinner.

So why isn't there any evidence of a world wide flood?

because there were only a few who survived and the concern was not for the evil that perished ... physical evidence for so short an event would not be saved. the lesson is self evident whether adhered to or not.

Of course there would be geologic evidence of a 40 day worldwide flood. Especially all the dead animals, plants and humans.

The FLOOD of Noah's day lasted a year... And there is plenty of evidence, it is just that evolutionists and uniformitarians wish to apply the evidence to their theories.

Can you link to such evidence? Or is this merely fartsmoke?

 

[Karl Rand]

Can you link to such evidence? Or is this merely fartsmoke?

’’FARTSMOKE” What a fabulous term to add to my vocabulary, thanks.
Now where did Jesus and his onmiscience go?

 

[LittleNipper]

The people sent out voyager into outer space with a gold record containing strange images and a cacophony of sounds and recordings of the earth, saying, "we are confused and just wanted to say hello", and clear directions how to get here. Like walking down a dark alley announcing,"Here I am and this is all my money."


Anyway you can think of divine law as a more sophisticated communication, help from another world, that arrived here 6000 years before anyone ever thought of sending a spacecraft into outer space.

So basically what's written in the Torah/bible.

You have 30 seconds to figure that one out for yourself.

Anyway, you can thank God that whatever otherworldly intelligences are responsible for establishing light in this screwed up world, they weren't hungry omnivorous atheists with an appetite for unclean creatures that do not ruminate.

What does ruminating animals have to do with anything? If god didn't want us to eat them, god wouldn't have put them here and make them taste so fine. (Even though I'm a vegetarian, )

And are your "other worldly intelligence", is that aliens?

Divinely, for thousands of years the Bible has remained unaltered. Truth doesn't require updating.

the spoken Religion of Antiquity - The Triumph of Good vs Evil - is only 6 words long and spoken by all beings on planet Earth - your 10000 page book is strewn with lies and deception on nearly every page - you wrote it you fix it, begin by there is no such thing as a messiah, sinner.

So why isn't there any evidence of a world wide flood?

because there were only a few who survived and the concern was not for the evil that perished ... physical evidence for so short an event would not be saved. the lesson is self evident whether adhered to or not.

Of course there would be geologic evidence of a 40 day worldwide flood. Especially all the dead animals, plants and humans.

The FLOOD of Noah's day lasted a year... And there is plenty of evidence, it is just that evolutionists and uniformitarians wish to apply the evidence to their theories.

Can you link to such evidence? Or is this merely fartsmoke?

One secular site would be this:

 

[Taz]

So basically what's written in the Torah/bible.

You have 30 seconds to figure that one out for yourself.

Anyway, you can thank God that whatever otherworldly intelligences are responsible for establishing light in this screwed up world, they weren't hungry omnivorous atheists with an appetite for unclean creatures that do not ruminate.

What does ruminating animals have to do with anything? If god didn't want us to eat them, god wouldn't have put them here and make them taste so fine. (Even though I'm a vegetarian, )

And are your "other worldly intelligence", is that aliens?

Divinely, for thousands of years the Bible has remained unaltered. Truth doesn't require updating.

the spoken Religion of Antiquity - The Triumph of Good vs Evil - is only 6 words long and spoken by all beings on planet Earth - your 10000 page book is strewn with lies and deception on nearly every page - you wrote it you fix it, begin by there is no such thing as a messiah, sinner.

So why isn't there any evidence of a world wide flood?

because there were only a few who survived and the concern was not for the evil that perished ... physical evidence for so short an event would not be saved. the lesson is self evident whether adhered to or not.

Of course there would be geologic evidence of a 40 day worldwide flood. Especially all the dead animals, plants and humans.

The FLOOD of Noah's day lasted a year... And there is plenty of evidence, it is just that evolutionists and uniformitarians wish to apply the evidence to their theories.

Can you link to such evidence? Or is this merely fartsmoke?

One secular site would be this:

I actually watched this, they provided no evidence of a 40 day worldwide flood, just local floods. So your video confirms what I said: no actual evidence for a 40 day worldwide flood.

 

[LittleNipper]

You have 30 seconds to figure that one out for yourself.

Anyway, you can thank God that whatever otherworldly intelligences are responsible for establishing light in this screwed up world, they weren't hungry omnivorous atheists with an appetite for unclean creatures that do not ruminate.

What does ruminating animals have to do with anything? If god didn't want us to eat them, god wouldn't have put them here and make them taste so fine. (Even though I'm a vegetarian, )

And are your "other worldly intelligence", is that aliens?

the spoken Religion of Antiquity - The Triumph of Good vs Evil - is only 6 words long and spoken by all beings on planet Earth - your 10000 page book is strewn with lies and deception on nearly every page - you wrote it you fix it, begin by there is no such thing as a messiah, sinner.



because there were only a few who survived and the concern was not for the evil that perished ... physical evidence for so short an event would not be saved. the lesson is self evident whether adhered to or not.

Of course there would be geologic evidence of a 40 day worldwide flood. Especially all the dead animals, plants and humans.

The FLOOD of Noah's day lasted a year... And there is plenty of evidence, it is just that evolutionists and uniformitarians wish to apply the evidence to their theories.

Can you link to such evidence? Or is this merely fartsmoke?

One secular site would be this:

I actually watched this, they provided no evidence of a 40 day worldwide flood, just local floods. So your video confirms what I said: no actual evidence for a 40 day worldwide flood.

These so called "area" FLOOD disasters seem to have taken place around the globe and all at about the same time --- as far as so called "myth stories" go. And they were ALL once look upon by "modern" science as mere tales ---- until recent finds have proven otherwise.

 

[Taz]

What does ruminating animals have to do with anything? If god didn't want us to eat them, god wouldn't have put them here and make them taste so fine. (Even though I'm a vegetarian, )

And are your "other worldly intelligence", is that aliens?

Of course there would be geologic evidence of a 40 day worldwide flood. Especially all the dead animals, plants and humans.

The FLOOD of Noah's day lasted a year... And there is plenty of evidence, it is just that evolutionists and uniformitarians wish to apply the evidence to their theories.

Can you link to such evidence? Or is this merely fartsmoke?

One secular site would be this:

I actually watched this, they provided no evidence of a 40 day worldwide flood, just local floods. So your video confirms what I said: no actual evidence for a 40 day worldwide flood.

These so called "area" FLOOD disasters seem to have taken place around the globe and all at about the same time --- as far as so called "myth stories" go. And they were ALL once look upon by "modern" science as mere tales ---- until recent finds have proven otherwise.

Still not a 40 day worldwide flood that killed massive amounts of human, plants and animals. Thanks for clearing that up.