A War From One Side

[foggedinn]

It is incredibly easy to prove that even a saint is a wretched sinner. Why bother? It is a matter of divinely revealed truth.
As a matter of Law, confession is better. It worked for me. It was all it took for me to walk away from a hugh mess.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is the actual first line “1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Science doesn’t say that.

In Genesis 1 why is it called “heavens” and not just one “heaven”? Are there different heavens?​

The passage in Genesis 1:1 is not referring to heaven in the sense of the dwelling place of God or the resting place of immortal souls. The hebrew word here is shamayim and it is more clearly defined as “firmament” which means ‘the vault or arch of the sky’. It refers to what we can see in the sky i.e. the dwelling place of the sun, the stars, the moon, the blue sky, etc.

In Genesis 1 why is it called “heavens” and not just one “heaven”? Are there different heavens?

The passage in Genesis 1:1 is not referring to heaven in the sense of the dwelling place of God or the resting place of immortal souls. The hebrew word here is shamayim and it is more clearly defi…

metrobibleblog.wordpress.com

 

[JoeBlow]

In Genesis 1 why is it called “heavens” and not just one “heaven”? Are there different heavens?​

The passage in Genesis 1:1 is not referring to heaven in the sense of the dwelling place of God or the resting place of immortal souls. The hebrew word here is shamayim and it is more clearly defined as “firmament” which means ‘the vault or arch of the sky’. It refers to what we can see in the sky i.e. the dwelling place of the sun, the stars, the moon, the blue sky, etc.

In Genesis 1 why is it called “heavens” and not just one “heaven”? Are there different heavens?

The passage in Genesis 1:1 is not referring to heaven in the sense of the dwelling place of God or the resting place of immortal souls. The hebrew word here is shamayim and it is more clearly defi…

metrobibleblog.wordpress.com

You keep avoiding the obvious, when god mentions that he made the earth as well. C'mon, let's see you dance around that.

BTW, it's called "heaven", not "heavens".

 

[PoliticalChic]

You keep avoiding the obvious, when god mentions that he made the earth as well. C'mon, let's see you dance around that.

BTW, it's called "heaven", not "heavens".

Who made it?

 

[JoeBlow]

Who made it?

Science doesn't say. So you don't dispute that your Big Bang comparison to the first line of the bible is bs. Good for you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Science doesn't say. So you don't dispute that your Big Bang comparison to the first line of the bible is bs. Good for you.

Science agrees with the Bible: it had a beginning.

Further, scientists acknowledge that the universe, the heavens, was created in anticipation of human life.


Freeman John Dyson (15 December 1923 – 28 February 2020) was an English-born American physicist, mathematician, and futurist, famous for his work in quantum mechanics, nuclear weapons design and policy, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. He was the winner of the Templeton Prize in the year 2000. Freeman Dyson - Wikiquote

“The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”― Freeman John Dyson

Another physicist, an American one, Alan Lightman, wrote in Harper’s Magazine The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith, Page not found, which included the following:

“Theoretical physicists, on the other hand, are not satisfied with observing the universe. They want to know why. They want to explain all the properties of the universe in terms of a few fundamental principles and parameters. These fundamental principles, in turn, lead to the “laws of nature,” which govern the behavior of all matter and energy.

…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.

On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life.

The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist.”



Of course you atheists can ignore the facts.....the science.....or, just have an epiphany.​

 

[PoliticalChic]

Science doesn't say. So you don't dispute that your Big Bang comparison to the first line of the bible is bs. Good for you.

. “Today, 40% of all scientists believe in a personal God! Theology and science are closer together than in the past several centuries. We no longer need to fight the science vs. Bible battles—both are sources of different kinds of truth.

As an example, look at all that modern science has discovered about the unique character of the universe.



The Sun “burns” by fusing hydrogen (and higher elements) together. When two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogen is converted into energy. If the amount converted were slightly smaller—0.6% instead of 0.7%— the universe would consist only of hydrogen; with no heavy elements, there would be no planets and no life. If the amount converted were slightly larger (0.8%), fusion would happen so readily that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Again, there would be no solar systems and no life. The number must lie exactly between 0.6% and 0.8%.



This is called the “fine tuning” of the universe. Like slowly turning a radio dial to “tune in” a station, scientists have discovered that a whole variety of knobs have to be fine-tuned to enormous precision for the universe, and life, to exist. Hence, Dyson’s statement that “the universe knew we were coming.”



The universe is not a random crapshoot—the sense of purpose and design is overwhelming. When one ponders how scientists today demonstrate that the odds the universe “just happened” are infinitesimally small, it’s easy to believe in a Creator.”
The Universe Knew We Were Coming - Rich Hansen​

 

[JoeBlow]

Science doesn't say. So you admit that your Big Bang comparison to the first line of the bible is bs. Good for you.

Science agrees with the Bible: it had a beginning.

Further, scientists acknowledge that the universe, the heavens, was created in anticipation of human life.


Freeman John Dyson (15 December 1923 – 28 February 2020) was an English-born American physicist, mathematician, and futurist, famous for his work in quantum mechanics, nuclear weapons design and policy, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. He was the winner of the Templeton Prize in the year 2000. Freeman Dyson - Wikiquote

“The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”― Freeman John Dyson

Another physicist, an American one, Alan Lightman, wrote in Harper’s Magazine The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith, Page not found, which included the following:​

​

“Theoretical physicists, on the other hand, are not satisfied with observing the universe. They want to know why. They want to explain all the properties of the universe in terms of a few fundamental principles and parameters. These fundamental principles, in turn, lead to the “laws of nature,” which govern the behavior of all matter and energy.​

​

…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.​

​

On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.​

As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life.​

​

The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist.”​

​

​

​

Of course you atheists can ignore the facts.....the science.....or, just have an epiphany.​

This is the first line of the Bible "1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

That's not what science says, or are you having trouble understanding English?

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is the first line of the Bible "1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

That's not what science says, or are you having trouble understanding English?

The heavens is the universe.

Science agrees with the Bible: is was created, not always in existence.

Is that too nuanced for you?

 

[JoeBlow]

The heavens is the universe.

Science agrees with the Bible: is was created, not always in existence.

Is that too nuanced for you?

The earth wasn’t formed until around 9 billion years after the Big Bang. And science doesn’t say that it was “created”, you goofball, lol.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The earth wasn’t formed until around 9 billion years after the Big Bang. And science doesn’t say that it was “created”, you goofball, lol.

What is the explanation for the universe that the Marxist have you believing?


Bet I know who you voted for.

 

[JoeBlow]

What is the explanation for the universe that the Marxist have you believing?


Bet I know who you voted for.

I'm a Libertarian, so you'd be wrong again.

Science can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so it's all just theories and speculation about how this universe started. Or if it was even a continuation of something else... We just don't know. So to say that science agrees with the Bible isn't right. The Bible is very specific, and science hasn't made a final ruling on it yet.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm a Libertarian, so you'd be wrong again.

Science can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so it's all just theories and speculation about how this universe started. Or if it was even a continuation of something else... We just don't know. So to say that science agrees with the Bible isn't right. The Bible is very specific, and science hasn't made a final ruling on it yet.

So far we have determined that there are three areas of lacunae for you:
Science
Religion
Politics



One more time.....while you are now hiding behind "we just don't know"....your original posts clung to 'science knows more than the Bible.'


Get your story straight.

 

[JoeBlow]

So far we have determined that there are three areas of lacunae for you:
Science
Religion
Politics



One more time.....while you are now hiding behind "we just don't know"....your original posts clung to 'science knows more than the Bible.'


Get your story straight.

You said that science backs up the bible. I'm saying that science doesn't even know itself how this universe started. So how could it back up a book that you think is right on the matter?
Plus, the earth wasn't formed until 9 billion years after the Big Bang. The bible says the earth was formed in the first line.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You said that science backs up the bible. I'm saying that science doesn't even know itself how this universe started. So how could it back up a book that you think is right on the matter?
Plus, the earth wasn't formed until 9 billion years after the Big Bang. The bible says the earth was formed in the first line.

The Bible, the Judeo-Christian faith, is responsible for Western Civiliazation.

Yet, even when you now admit neither science nor religion can ascertain the origin of the universe.....you somehow come down on the feeble argument that suggests that science trumps religion.

You take the side of atheist Leftism....which, as David Mamet puts it:

The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?” But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder.


Why is your choice atheistic Militant Secularism?

 

[JoeBlow]

The Bible, the Judeo-Christian faith, is responsible for Western Civiliazation.

Yet, even when you now admit neither science nor religion can ascertain the origin of the universe.....you somehow come down on the feeble argument that suggests that science trumps religion.

You take the side of atheist Leftism....which, as David Mamet puts it:

The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?” But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder.


Why is your choice atheistic Militant Secularism?

You're confused, all I was trying to do was to show you that science doesn't back up the Bible. Mission accomplished, since you don't even mention that in your last post. You changed the conversation to "The Bible, the Judeo-Christian faith, is responsible for Western Civiliazation.", which is not what we were discussing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're confused, all I was trying to do was to show you that science doesn't back up the Bible. Mission accomplished, since you don't even mention that in your last post. You changed the conversation to "The Bible, the Judeo-Christian faith, is responsible for Western Civiliazation.", which is not what we were discussing.

Perhaps you should read it again...and answer the question:


The Bible, the Judeo-Christian faith, is responsible for Western Civiliazation.

Yet, even when you now admit neither science nor religion can ascertain the origin of the universe.....you somehow come down on the feeble argument that suggests that science trumps religion.

You take the side of atheist Leftism....which, as David Mamet puts it:

The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?” But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder.


Why is your choice atheistic Militant Secularism?

 

[JoeBlow]

Perhaps you should read it again...and answer the question:


The Bible, the Judeo-Christian faith, is responsible for Western Civiliazation.

Yet, even when you now admit neither science nor religion can ascertain the origin of the universe.....you somehow come down on the feeble argument that suggests that science trumps religion.

You take the side of atheist Leftism....which, as David Mamet puts it:

The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?” But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder.


Why is your choice atheistic Militant Secularism?

My choice is trying to get at the truth. Science is the way forward. Religion is stuck in time not even attempting anymore to find the truth.

 

[PoliticalChic]

My choice is trying to get at the truth. Science is the way forward. Religion is stuck in time not even attempting anymore to find the truth.

Lots of truth in the religon of our Founders....

There is no 'truth' in Militant Secularism.....just lots of murder.

Your posts smack of being indoctrinated.

 

[JoeBlow]

Lots of truth in the religon of our Founders....

There is no 'truth' in Militant Secularism.....just lots of murder.

Your posts smack of being indoctrinated.

We were talking about whether science backs up what the bible says. I've proven that it doesn't and you don't even dispute that anymore. Now it's about some atheist militant secularism, whatever the f that is, lol.