09 May 09
Originally posted by adam warlockanachronistic is your term, you may use it how you see fit, nor do i believe they can be different, for the God of truth is one and the same, if you would like to start a new thread, then be my guest, but i warn you in advance, i do not suffer assumptions in any guise nor dogma and postulation masquerading as either science or theology.
😕
Are you interested in knowing why your comment was anachronistic and why I said that the God Newton belied is most certainly different from the one you believe?
09 May 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs I intend to answer questions pertaining the original subject of this thread I'll do a little bit of hijacking too.
anachronistic is your term, you may use it how you see fit, nor do i believe they can be different, for the God of truth is one and the same, if you would like to start a new thread, then be my guest, but i warn you in advance, i do not suffer assumptions in any guise nor dogma and postulation masquerading as either science or theology.
anachronistic is your term, you may use it how you see fit
No. Anachronistic is a term that has a very precise definition and so I can't use it how I see fit. I can only use it when it applies to something. In that particular case it applied. So once again I ask you if you want to know why I said you were being anachronistic?
for the God of truth is one and the same
Does this mean that the god of a Gnostic Christian is the same God of the 13th century Christian? Or the same God a 21th century Pakistani Sunni follower of Islam?
but i warn you in advance, i do not suffer assumptions in any guise nor dogma and postulation masquerading as either science or theology.
But you just stated one theological dogma in your reply! 😕
09 May 09
2 edits
Originally posted by adam warlocki do not know, but have you never heard of the term, artistic license? what it essentially means is that person is entitled to use an entity in a way that they deem fit, regardless of its original intent, context, meaning or whatever. is it possible that you may do the same? i would say yes, because you evaluate, with your mind, in a different manner than from what i do, because we are not one and the same, your perceptions are yours and mines are mine, you have your window and i mine. therefore your assumption that it is specific is pants, unadulterated pants infact, it may be specific to your evaluation, but that is all, so lets not get ahead of ourselves.
As I intend to answer questions pertaining the original subject of this thread I'll do a little bit of hijacking too.
[b]anachronistic is your term, you may use it how you see fit
No. Anachronistic is a term that has a very precise definition and so I can't use it how I see fit. I can only use it when it applies to something. In that particular ...[text shortened]... s either science or theology.[/b]
But you just stated one theological dogma in your reply! 😕[/b]
whether the God of the Gnostic church is one and the same, or the God of Islam is one and the same is neither here nor there, for the God of Newton, which you are so anxious to expound to me, is found in the Bible, not in the Koran, nor is its demarcation linguistic, geographic, cultural or anachronistic, for truth is able to transcend time, geography, language and culture. Mens understanding may have changed, but this is in no way to be interpreted as God himself having changed, for he is quite obviously outside the realm of time, having no beginning nor end.
dogma smogma, if something can be refuted, then refute it! if there is a contradiction, then all the better, for when contradiction arises it gives a chance for seeing the error clearly, and thus that which was established is washed away and something more solid may take its place, for castles made of sand, fall in the sea, eventually.
but please take it to the spiritual forum, i promise i will read and reply to your comments there, for i am conscious that this is a science forum, and i do not want to encroach upon anyone's enjoyment by littering it with irrelevant posts.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
10 May 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis conversation is not irrelevant in the least
i do not know, but have you never heard of the term, artistic license? what it essentially means is that person is entitled to use an entity in a way that they deem fit, regardless of its original intent, context, meaning or whatever. is it possible that you may do the same? i would say yes, because you evaluate, with your mind, in a different mann ...[text shortened]... m, and i do not want to encroach upon anyone's enjoyment by littering it with irrelevant posts.
10 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobiei do not know, but have you never heard of the term, artistic license? what it essentially means is that person is entitled to use an entity in a way that they deem fit, regardless of its original intent, context, meaning or whatever.
is it possible that you may do the same? i would say yes, because you evaluate, with your mind, in a different manner than from what i do, because we are not one and the same, your perceptions are yours and mines are mine, you have your window and i mine. therefore your assumption that it is specific is pants, unadulterated pants infact, it may b ...[text shortened]... m, and i do not want to encroach upon anyone's enjoyment by littering it with irrelevant posts.
So lemme see if I got this right: in the Science forum you don't expect me to talk about spiritual topics, but you expect me to use artistic license. 😕 Do you mean to tell me that using artistic licnse is scientific? 😕 My good man if we are to talk and try to reason things out we have to be very precise in the words we use and in the meaning they have. And we also have to be coherent.
therefore your assumption that it is specific is pants, unadulterated pants infact, it may be specific to your evaluation, but that is all, so lets not get ahead of ourselves.
You're just being juvenile and I'm starting to think I gave you more credit you diserve. If you want to change the meaning of the words, you're not interested in reasoning you just want to be a sophist. You have all the right to do so but don't expect me to go down the same road.
whether the God of the Gnostic church is one and the same, or the God of Islam is one and the same is neither here nor there, for the God of Newton, which you are so anxious to expound to me, is found in the Bible, not in the Koran, nor is its demarcation linguistic, geographic, cultural or anachronistic, for truth is able to transcend time, geography, language and culture.
You do realize tha you are just contradicting yourself in here don't you? Or are you saying that the God in the Koran is a false God?
Mens understanding may have changed, but this is in no way to be interpreted as God himself having changed, for he is quite obviously outside the realm of time, having no beginning nor end.
I never said it was to be interpreted as God himself. That's why I used the expression "Newton's God" and "You're God". And your first sentence is my point all along.
dogma smogma, if something can be refuted, then refute it! if there is a contradiction, then all the better, for when contradiction arises it gives a chance for seeing the error clearly
In that case let me just indicate you waht you said:
for the God of truth is one and the same this is a dogma for anyone that knows what a dogma is.
i do not suffer assumptions in any guise nor dogma and postulation masquerading as either science or theology contradicting yourself.
And you do realize that another dogma of yours is the very existence of God?
nd i do not want to encroach upon anyone's enjoyment by littering it with irrelevant posts.
Just like joe shmo said: "This conversation is not irrelevant in the least"
10 May 09
Originally posted by adam warlockwhat is it about the way we perceive things differently that you do not understand? incoherent is another one of your terms and illustrates the point at hand, it was pointed out to you that words can be used to convey almost anything, but because there use may differ from your perception, of their use, they suddenly become incoherent! do you work for a tabloid newspaper, for they use this type of sensationalistic journalism to make a living, they could very well use your talents.
[b]i do not know, but have you never heard of the term, artistic license? what it essentially means is that person is entitled to use an entity in a way that they deem fit, regardless of its original intent, context, meaning or whatever.
So lemme see if I got this right: in the Science forum you don't expect me to talk about spiritual topics ...[text shortened]... /b]
Just like joe shmo said: "This conversation is not irrelevant in the least"[/b]
i deserve nothing from you, why should it be that i should crave recognition from you, i have my own mind, my own perceptions and can i not formulate my own thoughts. what is it about originality of thought you do not understand?
Look my friend, the notes in a musical composition are well defined, the laws of harmony are also well defined and can be readily assimilated, but what one does with these sequence of notes in the way they are arranged in relation to one another is what makes for a well pleasing composition, now if we are to simply read and play the piece of another, we are merely imitating the composer, we are in other words simply conveying his ideas, but to take these well defined notes ourselves, to enter into 'the spirit of composition', to rearrange these notes to convey our own thoughts is something entirely different, is it not, so, i say to you again, originality is what is to be strived for, this rehashing of second hand opinion is interesting, but originality of thought is to be strived for, therefore all you assertions of being dogmatic, juvenile, contradictory are utterly without foundation, for these thought are the product of my own mind and seem to me to be perfectly reasonable, therefore you had better say what you have to say, for this pansying around is futile.
10 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm done here. It's pretty clear that you don't want to engage in a serious conversation.
what is it about the way we perceive things differently that you do not understand? incoherent is another one of your terms and illustrates the point at hand, it was pointed out to you that words can be used to convey almost anything, but because there use may differ from your perception, of their use, they suddenly become incoherent! do you work f onable, therefore you had better say what you have to say, for this pansying around is futile.
29 May 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes...the universe had a beginning. I got bored one day and decided to start a universe. All I had to work with was some left over erector set parts, and a few lego blocks. It's still holding together pretty well though! 😀
any comments most welcome , please.
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by bill718Lol, what i was really trying to ascertain, was what the historical train of thought is, for i read somewhere that the 'scientific consensus', if i may use that term to describe what scientists 'generally agree upon', at any one point, was that the universe had always existed, then it was proffered that it must have had a beginning, and it seemed generally accepted , now it seems that we they know not for sure. What i really wanted to know was, why the consensus had swung from thinking that there was no beginning, until, yes there is a beginning.
Yes...the universe had a beginning. I got bored one day and decided to start a universe. All I had to work with was some left over erector set parts, and a few lego blocks. It's still holding together pretty well though! 😀
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI would assume that there is no correlation. If only for the reason that social maturation is based on a person's environment throughout their life and IQ is not affected much by this.
[b]…
I, personally, do not believe that low IQ should be equated with 'stupidness'.
..…
I agree -at least when it comes to a persons behaviour -and I know this from personal experience:
I used to work as a carer for adults with leaning disabilities and all my clients obviously had very low IQ but some (sadly not all) were behaving ...[text shortened]... tween IQ and social maturity but I bet it isn’t nearly as strong as some people would imagine.[/b]
Maybe there will or have been studies that refute this statement. I would go find something about this but I'm too lazy 😛
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by tomtom232what are you doing here?, get back up to the chess only forum, this is strictly for fundamental Christians and fundamental Scientists to talk about their respective faiths. 🙂
I would assume that there is no correlation. If only for the reason that social maturation is based on a person's environment throughout their life and IQ is not affected much by this.
Maybe there will or have been studies that refute this statement. I would go find something about this but I'm too lazy 😛
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by Proper KnobAnyone who cites Dawkins as a proof of anything is more of an idiot than whomever he is trying to disparage. The "God Delusion" of Dawkins is nothing but that Dawkins considers himself the god of reason. He is neither.
"The God Delusion" by Prof. Richard Dawkins (2006)7
Richard
05 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Shallow Bluenor can he be, "for i am the chosen one", proper noobster knows this! dont you noobster my friend 🙂
Anyone who cites Dawkins as a proof of anything is more of an idiot than whomever he is trying to disparage. The "God Delusion" of Dawkins is nothing but that Dawkins considers himself the god of reason. He is neither.
Richard