31 Mar 16
Has anyone remarked that there can be many infinities?
As I am sometimes good and sometimes less so, a fair and just God might decide, on my demise, that I may spend every weekday with the angels in paradise but every weekend in hell. In that event, I would spend an infinite time in heaven and an infinite time in hell. The same God may decide that normbeign was often bad but sometimes less bad and should spend weekdays in hell and weekends in heaven. He too would thus enjoy eternity in heaven and suffer eternally in hell. Would his infinite time in hell be different to mine and why?
31 Mar 16
Originally posted by finneganfinnegan, is it within the realm of a remote possibility that the Sovereign God of the Universe is Immutable?
The idea of eternal life in which we all get back together - sans the ones who went to the other place - is asinine. Has anyone remarked that people change over time? I am not sure in what sense my ten year old self can be identified with my sixty year old self but neither has much in common with myself at forty. If I fail to change over eternity then clear ...[text shortened]... inconceivably different and alien.
A mortal man is not an immortal man.
Man is not immortal.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobbyhttp://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/God,-Immutability-Of
finnegan, is it within the realm of a remote possibility that the Sovereign God of the Universe is Immutable?
Within the realm of the Bible it would seem so. How that realm corresponds to the realm of a remote possibility is a different question. Much depends on the import of that qualifier "remote" and whether your concept of God includes the validity of constraints or qualities such as immutability.
In any event, "a remote possibility" must not be confused for "a possibility" and clearly therefore, a remote possibility is not a possibility. On this basis, the answer to your question could be "yes" or "no" without in any way progressing the conversation.
Originally posted by finneganIt's a good thing your salvation isn't dependent upon your goodness.
Has anyone remarked that there can be many infinities?
As I am sometimes good and sometimes less so, a fair and just God might decide, on my demise, that I may spend every weekday with the angels in paradise but every weekend in hell. In that event, I would spend an infinite time in heaven and an infinite time in hell. The same God may decide that nor ...[text shortened]... ven and suffer eternally in hell. Would his infinite time in hell be different to mine and why?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt would be interesting to hear you tackle the Christians here who also don't seem to believe salvation is dependent upon their goodness but instead claim that it depends on their belief only. It's interesting that I've never seen you discuss this with 'once saved, always saved' Christians and yet you choose to mention the supposed link between "salvation" and "goodness" in passing to an atheist instead. 😉
It's a good thing your salvation isn't dependent upon your goodness.
Originally posted by finneganIf there isn't a God......
http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/God,-Immutability-Of
Within the realm of the Bible it would seem so. How that realm corresponds to the realm of a remote possibility is a different question. Much depends on the import of that qualifier "remote" and whether your concept of God includes the validity of constraints or qualities such as immutability. ...[text shortened]... answer to your question could be "yes" or "no" without in any way progressing the conversation.
who and/or what is the uncaused cause of the universe responsible for the law of gravity?
01 Apr 16
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyWe have no reason to believe that any such 'uncaused cause' exists. Even if you believe in a God, there is no good reason to believe that.
If there isn't a God......
who and/or what is the uncaused cause of the universe responsible for the law of gravity?
In addition, if you do hypothesis such an uncaused cause, you have no way of identifying what it was, and hypothesizing about it would certainly not lead to the conclusion that a god must exist (as you apparently incorrectly believe).
And lastly, even if there were an uncaused cause, that is no good reason to think it is singular or was responsible for the law of gravity.
01 Apr 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadWho then is responsible for establishing the law of gravity
We have no reason to believe that any such 'uncaused cause' exists. Even if you believe in a God, there is no good reason to believe that.
In addition, if you do hypothesis such an uncaused cause, you have no way of identifying what it was, and hypothesizing about it would certainly not lead to the conclusion that a god must exist (as you apparently incorre ...[text shortened]... sed cause, that is no good reason to think it is singular or was responsible for the law of gravity.
which has applied to the human race
since human history began?"
01 Apr 16
Originally posted by finneganFollowing from the reality that there are many infinities, one might also recall that time (like distance) is infinitely divisible, so that to pass an hour requires a transition through an infinity of miniscule moments. That familiar feeling that a tedious sermon is eternally long is not without foundation and surely gives an insight into the meaninglessness of a concept like "eternity" when applied to a human life, compared with the sight of dust floating quietly in a sun beam entering the gloomy space through stained glass windows.
Has anyone remarked that there can be many infinities?
As I am sometimes good and sometimes less so, a fair and just God might decide, on my demise, that I may spend every weekday with the angels in paradise but every weekend in hell. In that event, I would spend an infinite time in heaven and an infinite time in hell. The same God may decide that nor ...[text shortened]... ven and suffer eternally in hell. Would his infinite time in hell be different to mine and why?
Another disaster for the suicide bombers among us, obviously.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThe so called 'law of gravity' is actually a phenomenon that arises from the structure of space time. It has applied to the whole universe (not just the human race) since the beginning of the universe. Because it is part of the very structure of spacetime in which 'causes' take place, it cannot really be said to be 'caused' in the scientific sense of the word. One might hypothesize that the universe itself was 'caused' in some external timeline/hyper-reality, but there really is no good reason for making such a hypothesis and certainly no way to find evidence for it.
Who then is responsible for establishing the law of gravity
which has applied to the human race
since human history began?"
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
01 Apr 16
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyCopy and pasted from Wikipedia for your convenience, and my amusement:
Who then is responsible for establishing the law of gravity
which has applied to the human race
since human history began?"
'General relativity (GR, also known as the general theory of relativity or GTR) is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915[1] and the current description of gravitation in modern physics. General relativity generalizes special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of partial differential equations.
Some predictions of general relativity differ significantly from those of classical physics, especially concerning the passage of time, the geometry of space, the motion of bodies in free fall, and the propagation of light. Examples of such differences include gravitational time dilation, gravitational lensing, the gravitational redshift of light, and the gravitational time delay. The predictions of general relativity have been confirmed in all observations and experiments to date. Although general relativity is not the only relativistic theory of gravity, it is the simplest theory that is consistent with experimental data. However, unanswered questions remain, the most fundamental being how general relativity can be reconciled with the laws of quantum physics to produce a complete and self-consistent theory of quantum gravity.'
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeAhhh Newton, one of the greatest scientists who has ever lived and an avid student of Gods word the Bible. Peace be upon him.
Copy and pasted from Wikipedia for your convenience, and my amusement:
'General relativity (GR, also known as the general theory of relativity or GTR) is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915[1] and the current description of gravitation in modern physics. General relativity generalizes special relativity and New ...[text shortened]... he laws of quantum physics to produce a complete and self-consistent theory of quantum gravity.'
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
01 Apr 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHe was of course gazumped by Einstein. (A large mass, the sun for example, causes a curvature in space which is responsible for gravity. Newton didn't quite grasp this).
Ahhh Newton, one of the greatest scientists who has ever lived and an avid student of Gods word the Bible. Peace be upon him.
[youtube]05L5F4GwOqM[/youtube]
[youtube]MTY1Kje0yLg[/youtube]
01 Apr 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeYes its differing points of reference I believe, never the less, a great man and a great theist.
He was of course gazumped by Einstein. (A large mass, the sun for example, causes a curvature in space which is responsible for gravity. Newton didn't quite grasp this).
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
01 Apr 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCould it be argued (mischievously) that Charles Russell studied Newton’s works intently and then “borrowed” his ideas and writings in his own work “Studies in the Scriptures”?!
Yes its differing points of reference I believe, never the less, a great man and a great theist.