The Religion Discussion

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Each revelation of the past with its laws were for a restricted time , place and people.

does the current revelation fit absolutely with our time , place and people?

what about the revelations of slavery?
what about space travel?

I've always wondered which direction should a Muslim on the International Space station face when praying? Seeing that it rotates and it travels at 27,724 KM/h around the earth that also rotates.

WHAT?there are muslims on the international space station??!!!

well Space Jihad in we mc.

Why you so ABA??

Duane: If the earth is spinning, when a Muslim faces east to pray, won't the earth's rotation move him from that direction very quickly? (Although he will still believe he is facing east because he is earth-based compared to being on the space station?)

Muslims don't face east when they are praying, they face the Kaaba. In T&T the Kaaba to the East of us.

[Kasey]

y they face kaaba again?

[Habit7]

Mythology & Folklore - doesn't not claim
Religious text - claim to be true

something claiming to be true does not make it true. Scientology claims to be true! Do you think it is?

Unlike you, I choose not to shirk the responsibility of discerning truth claims and actually saying which ones are wrong and which ones are right. I have been pronouncing on different truth claims and saying that they are wrong (ask AdamB) and saying that Christianity is right. You however, are attempting to not claim which religious groups are wrong, yet you do not affirm any. I can say Scientology is wrong, can you?

Compare oranges with oranges and apples with apples, people of other religions don't see other religious text as fairy tales; they see them as wrong in their truth claim

well I just compared one religion to the other above. Did that change your myopia?

I was referring to when you were referencing Thor, Zeus and Leprechauns. I applaud that you are being more focus now on religion specifically but from the my refutation of your subsequent absolute claim it seems that you are not as objective as you claim to be.

Again, I am not stating that any text is right or wrong. However there is no evidence that you are right and AdamB is wrong or vice versa other than your respective faith in what you believe to be true.

I know you want to appear objective, but I can at least recall that you believe the Bible is wrong on the issue of Creation and your need to repent and believe the Gospel.

I stated that there is no evidence of a young earth. There is no evidence that the earth is 6,000-12,000 years old as you stated. There is however extensive scientific evidence that the earth is billions of years old.
I also disagree with your hero, Dr. Jason Lisle, that when a scientific answer contradicts what is written in a holy text, we should ignore the scientific evidence and resort to what the holy text tells us.

Wow, I thought we discussed that making absolute statements like “there is no evidence” is impossible because it will entail you doing an extensive observation of every evidence, in every crevice, under every rock and then be able to say absolutely, this does not exists. But like most of what you are saying here I answered before:

AND there is ZERO scientific evidence that the earth is 6,000 - 12,000 years old as you claim.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, I though a couple pages before we were all established that to say that something doesn’t exist would require absolute knowledge? Duane, did you acquire something recently? Besides, did you watch past the first 40secs of Dr. Lisle’s video? The learned astronomer gave about 8 scientific arguments for a young earth.

Again you are saying there is no evidence of me being right and AdamB being wrong yet I can just scroll up on this very page and see where I responded to you and stated that the Bible outweighs the Qu'ran by manuscript evidence (the means by which historians verify historical data) and archaeological evidence.

YOu saying it does not make it true! You are being subjective and closed minded. Says the guy who makes the absolute statement "there exists no evidence" Which passages of the Bible trumps the Qur'an on this "evidence"?
Historians take manuscripts to support historical and scientific research. You say the Bible claims man and dinosaurs walked the earth together yet historians, archaeologists, scientists all show evidence that they were millions of years apart and never existed together. Now you want to use "archaeological evidence" as a point to prove the Bible's accuracy? That is flawed logic.

You saying what you are saying, doesn’t make it any more true either. Aren’t you being subjective and close-minded about them existing together? Don’t we have crocodilians and leatherback turtles live along us today, they were reptiles living alongside dinosaurs? “Historians, archaeologists” don’t tell us about dinosaurs, palaeontologists do. From our fossil record, which is largely incomplete, all we can tell is that something died. Not only did it die, but it died in an environment and condition, suitable for the lithification and preservation as a fossil for thousands of years. There many animals that die without fossilisation. In addition, dinosaur is a relatively recent word, for all we know some animals described in historical texts could be referring to what we understand as dinosaurs.
Finally, I don’t know if in your in depth research through Wikipedia you came across the term lagerstatten, which are extremely preserved fossils which include bone and soft tissue, something that challenges palaeontologists to believe that they are millions of years old. We have dinosaur lagerstatten.
BTW you did not refute my point of archaeological evidence, I think you are confusing archaeology with palaeontology, a simple but noble mistake.

Plus I outlined to Sacchetto that Muhammad advised his followers to observe the Torah, Psalms and Gospel and that these book can never be corrupted. Yet as later literate Muslims realised that these books contradict Islam, they claimed them all to be corrupted even though in the 7th Century these books of the Bible were already widely distributed throughout the world and yet analogous. But just as you did 20 pages prior you will claim there is no evidence, and when given the evidence you will gloss over it and 10 pages later claim absolutely there is NO evidence.

sorry I missed it, mind posting that evidence again?

The illiterate Muhammad told his followers to follow the Torah, Psalms and Gospel because they are given by God (Sura 2:87, 4:163, 3:3 & 5:46) and they cannot be corrupted (6:34, 6:115 & 10:64). Later literate Muslims realised that these books contradicted the Quran and began to say these books are corrupted (despite Allah said they can never be). They claim he was referring to the books before they were corrupted, but history proves (including the DSS) that these books were unchanged and widely distributed even up until the 7th century when Muhammad recited the Quran.
I gave evidence proving the Bible is correct over the Quran from the Bible, then the Quran. If you don’t see that as evidence that “Habit7 is right and AdamB is wrong” then I suggest you face Mecca and call on Muhammad for help, because AdamB and you are in the same boat.

firstly there is no real scientific evidence of supernatural events ever occuring, which is why they are called "supernatural"!!!

Let's do a word study, the prefix 'super-' means over, so if something is over-nature how can natural law and principle quantify it? It iss like a fish in bowl wanting to quantify the entire world without leaving the bowl and judging it based on observations within the bowl.

If the fish decides to claim all unexplained things are supernatural, how does the fish decide which explanation of the "supernatural" is true and which isn't?

Dude, forget the analogy, to ask for natural evidence of the supernatural is a nonsense. I was trying to paint a picture but I hope you understand that statement clearer than my analogy.

The ONLY logical way is to use scientific observation and testing. When man started carrying out this scientific process, many things that were believed to be supernatural turned out of have very natural explanations.

*ducks below broad brush*Name one frequent natural occurrence, the Bible called supernatural.
BTW the bastions of science today (Ivy League schools, Oxford, Cambridge, Issac Newton and major Western scientists) used the Bible as basis to discover how God ordered the world. So while you want to believe that all religious people though the wind was God sneezing, Christians were at the fore, progressing science to understand that the same moral law giver is a natural law giver. But now you believe that morality and nature came out of thin air 

Not too long ago major religions believed the world was flat and the earth was the center of the universe.

Yeah that’s sad, they should have read the Bible. But not too long ago science believed that the cell was simple, people could be bled to good health and Caucasians were the most evolved humans on the planet. But I am glad they came to the (static) truth.

what proves they were impartial?

What would you consider impartial?

YOU are the one making the claim therefore the burden of proof is on you to prove it. I don't have to disprove it.

Yeah I have laid the out the proof Jesus’ life, death and resurrection from biblical and secular sources. If you have another view, bring a historical text to challenge it and we will see which one is more reliable.
BTW to disagree with the historicity of the New Testament, you will also have to disagree with Sophocles, Aristotle and Plato to name a few, because we have less evidence for them.

As I said before, there is ample historical evidence that Jesus existed, but no scientific evidence that anything supernatural occurred.

Tell me what will be your version of ample scientific evidence for the supernatural. You can’t be looking for something and don’t know what it looks like?

But you are saying that the books that made it in the final Bible are inspired, therefore anything else found would be uninspired - so you'd write it off anyway!

I don’t see how this is refuting my point? Do you think that every book contemporary to Isaiah should be in the Bible?

People could have varying interpretations, but only one is right.

Not really. All could be wrong!

Well Jew and Christians believe that revelation is not esoteric, it is knowable, one interpretation must be correct.

likewise with the Jews and the Christians. But before you run to the Jewish interpretation to prove ambiguity, read it and say if it does or doesn't give a specific prophetic account of Jesus.

Obviously a Christian reading the Bible account will lean towards the divinity of Jesus.

Yes and this confirms my point of the supernatural, but I guess we have long forgotten how this discussion started.

But reading it objectively with an open mind I see where it can definitely allude to the suffering of Jesus in some aspects, but it was also written in past tense (a prophesy should be written in future tense since it is stating what will happen) and if you read on a bit more, Isaiah 49:3 says "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.", considering Isaiah 53 is the "Song of the Servant" then that supports the Jewish belief.

Check out what Wikipedia has to say on biblical hermeneutics and see how we come to conclusions from the Bible. The Book of Revelation, which is mostly prophecy of a future time including the second coming of Christ, is in past tense as John like Isaiah ,retells what he saw. Isaiah 49 also is a prophetic with the “Servant” there is referring to the prophetic and priestly functions of the Messiah. The title of Isaiah 53 you mentioned is not considered inspired BTW. The Jews who saw Jesus fulfilling Isaiah 53 became Christians and were the first believers of the church, those who didn’t still are looking for a messiah. But if you try to fit Israel into Isaiah 53 you get Israel being a man (v3) having a grave (v9) and bearing the sin of many and interceding to God for them (v12). That just doesn’t match up.

At the end of the day none of that makes it even true! Isaiah could have been talking about someone or something else entirely! the world was much harsher then and servants and slaves and famine and drought and oppression were real, everyday realities.

Well if you know of that individual, bring him to our attention and let’s examine him, but Jesus fulfils all of Isaiah’s prophecies.

The secular sources confirm the supernatural once it is something that was specifically prophesied before.

and what was specifically prophesied before?[/quote] Jesus’ life, death and resurrection.

You can make a number of events appear as though they were specifically prophesied before by Nostradamus if you massaged it enough!

You don’t have to massage Isaiah. Quote your best Nostradamus prophesy and its corresponding fulfilment and let’s see if it is more specific than Isaiah’s about Jesus.

scientific evidence is actual factual proof, so showing proof to prove something is not circular at all.

How are you sure that the science you are judging everything by is correct enough to judge all things?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

There are other books that didnt make it into the bible as they were just simply historical accounts of evidence giving a eye witness account but not inspired,

how can we tell which books are inspired and which books are not?

there are actually books that go against the bible

well if they put books in the bible that go against what the other books in the bible are saying it wouldnt make sense would it

and encourage some rather strange practises,the Maccabees is an example of one such book.

Leviticus has some strange practices too, but that made it into the Bible.

Leviticus 19:27 “‘Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

Leviticus 20:99 “‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.

But a man who sleeps with a slave girl that is not his will not. Just a ram will do?
Leviticus 19:20 “‘If a man sleeps with a female slave who is promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment.[a] Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed. 21 The man, however, must bring a ram to the entrance to the tent of meeting for a guilt offering to the Lord.

I thought insects had six legs! The Bible says they have 4!
Leviticus 11:20 “‘All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you. 21 There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground.

Some of the writers themselves never even claimed to be inspired.

if the writer claims his work is inspired that is proof that it is inspired?

[Habit7]

took this from my facebook feed, the guy is someone i went to school with years ago
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v59/k ... e24a5d.png
idk, i find God cudda well link him with a bess job

And who says that TODAY one should follow the laws of the jews? Each revelation of the past with its laws were for a restricted time , place and people.

The Seventh Day Adventists have tried to hold on to practises of the Old Testament when the rest of Christendom have let it go.

Habit7 claims he follows the OT too but does he (and other christians):
1. circumcise their male?
2. not eat pork (and other unclean meat specified in OT)?
3. observe the sabbath?
4. observe punishment of death for murder?
5. put to death the one who strikes or curses his/her mother or father?
6. do not allow the sorceress to live?
7. put to death the one who has intercourse with an animal?
8. if he seduces a virgin, pay her price and make her his wife?
9. do not demand usury / interest for money lent to the poor?

TO NAME A FEW...

I feel very sorry for that SDA guy. My mother-in-law who is a convert from SDA to Christianity and along my other experiences with SDA, all relate to the heavy burden of law SDA places on its followers. Briefly, SDA was a religious sect of the early 1800's that started out from a failed religious sect that fizzled because of failed prophecies. Ellen G. White, the sect's main interpreter of Scripture, told them to start observing the Sabbath. Along with other issues, mainstream Christianity has always rejected Ellen G. White's interpretations and the SDA church stands outside of orthodox Christianity.

Before I answer your questions, allow me a preamble. This the lowest hanging fruit a sceptic can attempt to grab in attacking Christianity. A simple google search would explain why Christianity in general doesn't observe these laws and more importantly a cursory reading of the Bible or even the NT specifically would explain these answers. But they are valid questions and I will point you to their answers from Scripture.

Christians interpret the OT through the NT, so if the NT doesn't reiterate a OT principle in the NT we don't carry it over. That being generally said, it is important to note that in the Pentateuch there are moral laws (eg 10 commandments), ceremonial laws (for sacrificial system) and the federal law (to govern the Israelites). With the exception of the Sabbath, all the moral law is repeated in the NT and we follow it. The ceremonial law was done away with as Christ is the once and for all sacrifice and the federal law doesn't apply to any of us now because we don't live in pre-first century theocratic Israel. However Christians study these abrogated laws to understand the character of God but we don't practise them.

1. Circumcision of males was done as a sign to distinguish Jews. But the NT calls for a circumcision of the heart (Romans 2:29; Col. 2:11-12)
2. Pork and other unclean meat might have been unhealthy for a nomadic tribe and again it set the Jews apart. But the NT says all meat are now clean (Mark 7:19, Acts 10:15)
3. In the Creation Week, God worked for 6 days and rested on the 7th, not because he was tired but as an example to the Jews to rest from work. Also in a spiritual sense, it told the Jews though they are working to serve God under the Law a day will come when they will rest. Jesus is that rest (Matthew 12:8, Mark 2:27). Christians rest in Jesus as he has done all the work on the cross (Colossians 2:16-17).
4. We obey the current laws of the land once they don't contradicts Christianity (Romans 13:1-7)
5. See #4
6. See #4
7. See #4
8. I am not sure what you are referring to from the OT but, if it is a federal law for pre-first century Jews, in that Israel, we don't observe it.
9. See #8

That being said, the reason why some of your questions might appear immoral to us residents of the Western World, is because we have a morality and by extension legal system enlighten by Christianity and the Bible. Christians are the reason why we think some of this is wrong and have been the champions to change pagan morality to the Judeo-Christian moral were view as superior today (although liberals are fighting to change it back nowadays).

*must restrain oneself from pointing out the irony of a Muslim asking why Christians do not practise the apparent harsh laws seen in the OT*

I hope this answers you questions

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

That being said, the reason why some of your questions might appear immoral to us residents of the Western World, is because we have a morality and by extension legal system enlighten by Christianity and the Bible. Christians are the reason why we think some of this is wrong and have been the champions to change pagan morality to the Judeo-Christian moral were view as superior today (although liberals are fighting to change it back nowadays).

Christians brought slavery to the Western World.

There are many societies that have developed modern morals without Christianity.
China and Japan have secular morality.

Also Christians believe a rapist can be saved through Christ and then suffer no consequence to his terrible actions, where is the morality in that?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Christians interpret the OT through the NT, so if the NT doesn't reiterate a OT principle in the NT we don't carry it over..... However Christians study these abrogated laws to understand the character of God but we don't practise them.

New Testament
1 Timothy 2:12 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[a] she must be quiet."

Also Jesus said in Matthew 5-17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets (Old Testament); I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

[Habit7]

Christians did not bring slavery to the Western World. Slavery existed prior to Christianity and was present in almost every society during the ancient nation of Israel. Furthermore, slavery existed among the Native Americans long before the start of the West African slave trade.

When we think of slavery we think of the miniseries Roots and whips and oppression, but that was not always the case. As you reference before of a harsher society back then, with no social net and a likelihood of starvation, people willingly entered servitude for a food, shelter and safety. Also as a means to paying off a debt, people entered slavery. The Bible outlined principles for the Jews not to oppress these slaves (more like indentured workers) in releasing them after 6 years (Exodus 21:2; Deuteronomy 15:12), opposing violence against them (Exodus 21:20), a severance when freed (Deuteronomy 15:14) to name a few. If there were Christians who not understanding the clear principle laid out in the OT of responsible slave ownership, oppressed their slaves, they were wrong, and many Christians spoke out against it. Again, it was Christian parliamentarians like William Wilberforce who made it his life's goal to eliminate slavery from the British Empire with direct reference to the Bible. Thank God he succeeded.

China and Japan were by no means secular. I think we went through this before where I told you they have hundreds of years developing a Buddhist morality, you claimed that something like Buddhism doesn't have a morality, remind me of your view again?

Yes a rapist (liar/fornicator/idolater/etc) can be saved from the wrath that he deserves from God for his sin, because he has humbled himself, repented of his sin, and put his faith in fact that Christ took the wrath from the Father that he deserves, on the cross. The truth that God has saved him that he will have new desires, he will understand, study and know God's Word anew. His lifestyle will constantly growing in sanctification and holiness. That is message of the magnificent Gospel.
Now if the law finds him, or as he should as he grows in grace, surrender himself to the governing bodies for the crime he commited, he should be willing to submit himself to whatever earthly punishment he deserves. No more a greater example of this than the thief on the cross, who came to a saving knowledge of Jesus whilst being crucified next to Him, he was not spared what the governing laws required, he was spared what God's law required through Christ and was with Him in Paradise.

It was good to see your attempt to interpret Scripture with Isaiah, but I see where you will have learn next about context. 1 Timothy 2:12 refers solely and only to the role of a woman within the church. God has called men to be teachers (in this context: pastors) not because of any physical or mental incapability of the women but because of the creation order according to 1 Timothy 2:13 (the following verse). The Bible has women teaching men in the account of Priscilla teaching Apollos outside of a church setting (Acts 18:26)and husbands and wives are called to submit themselves one to another (Ephesians 5:21).

Matthew 5:17 speaks of the fact that Christ came to fulfil the Law (moral, ceremonial and federal/judicial) and to demonstrate perfect righteousness. As Christians now live after what has been "accomplished" we receive the perfect righteousness he lived. And unlike the Old Covenant, we now live under the New Covenant where while God's moral law convicts us of sin (Roman 7:7), in Christ we are freed from the Law as means to please God (Ephesians 2:14-15) and God instead develops for Christians His Law individually (Hebrews 8:10).

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ You are making claims without showing any proof as usual.

Just like your claim of the earth being 6000 years old.

Now you're supporting Buddhism as brining morals. I thought you said only Christianity did that?

[Dizzy28]

I feel very sorry for that SDA guy. My mother-in-law who is a convert from SDA to Christianity and along my other experiences with SDA

SDAs are not Christians? (Serious Question by the way)

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ alot of religious sects do not consider other sects to be truly of their religion. That is not unusual.

It's like megadoc1 claiming earlier that Catholics were not really practicing Christianity.

[Habit7]

^ You are making claims without showing any proof as usual.
Just like your claim of the earth being 6000 years old.
Now you're supporting Buddhism as brining morals. I thought you said only Christianity did that?

When you make absolute claims like "there is no evidence" I wonder if you truly require evidence for your position or if you can even perceive the evidence you receive.
I said Christianity is responsible for Western morality.

I feel very sorry for that SDA guy. My mother-in-law who is a convert from SDA to Christianity and along my other experiences with SDA

SDAs are not Christians? (Serious Question by the way)

SDA dwells outside of orthodoxy because of the church's view that Jesus is archangel Michael, our sin will be ultimately be placed on Satan, on October 22 1844 Jesus entered the second and last phase of his atoning work, worship must be done on a Saturday and most importantly, because Ellen G. White doesn't have 100% accuracy with prophecy she is considered a false prophet.

While there may be some within SDA who individually are within orthodoxy by them reading and understanding the Bible individually, if one were to fully follow the church’s teachings on everything, it would lead to heresy.

It's like megadoc1 claiming earlier that Catholics were not really practicing Christianity.

Well I hope while being a Roman Catholic you learnt that the church differs from orthodox Christianity on the essentials of worshiping other gods through the veneration of Mary and the saints and disagreeing with salvation by grace through faith. Also there are other issues such as papal infallibly, indulgences, Mary being Christ co-redemptrix, purgatory and Vatican Council II condemning all Christians (those outside of RC) to be anathema (damned).

You can also find out more about a Roman Catholic monk called Martin Luther (not the civil rights leader) who in the 1500’s began to question the church based on its inconsistency with the Bible. It began a movement called the Reformation which rediscovered the truths of Christianity in Europe and eventually crippled the Roman Empire.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Supernatural explanations is not evidence.

[Dizzy28]

^ alot of religious sects do not consider other sects to be truly of their religion. That is not unusual.

It's like megadoc1 claiming earlier that Catholics were not really practicing Christianity.

Hmmm....guess that explains why our Census has the Christian Sects separate and there is no one category for Christians.

[Habit7]

Supernatural explanations is not evidence.

So since everything in the natural world came from something natural prior, how do you account for nature? (You are free to include evidences in pie chart or spreadsheet format)

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Supernatural explanations is not evidence.

So since everything in the natural world came from something natural prior, how do you account for nature? (You are free to include evidences in pie chart or spreadsheet format)

do you want me to post the entire subjects of Science, Biology, Geology, Physics, Astronomy, Archeology etc etc?

Or are those subjects just propaganda against the teachings of a supernatural God?

Also if you subscribe to supernatural explanations (since you cannot rely on scientific evidence, observation by peers, testing and peer review) you will end up with various wild stories and you will have to have faith to determine which one is true to you. That doesn't, however make it true.

[marlener]

@ Duane Actually the Catholics include them in their bible because it supported some of their beliefs,example praying for the dead in hope of getting them into heaven and others.
No a writer claiming his book is inspired dioes not make it inspired Duane that circular logic you know that lol. With the inspired books you would realised a couple of things,they compliment other books in that the same principle can usually be found else where in the bible. I would like to go on by I`m awaiting a response from AdamB.
As far as I know both Catholics and Adventists consider themselves christians,I am subject to correction though.
I have some varying views with some of Habit7 posts but I would not address them now as I want to focus on answering AdamB and Duane questions first.

[Habit7]

Supernatural explanations is not evidence.

So since everything in the natural world came from something natural prior, how do you account for nature? (You are free to include evidences in pie chart or spreadsheet format)

do you want me to post the entire subjects of Science, Biology, Geology, Physics, Astronomy, Archeology etc etc?

Dude that will be committing the logical fallacy of argumentum verbosium. Plus you will be holding me to a different standard than you are holding yourself.

Simply explain how nature came to exist through natural law.

[maj. tom]

The laws of nature are the laws of physics. The laws of physics unfolded at the Big Bang and governs the entire Universe as we know it. This Universe. We have no idea if there are other Universes that formed at the Big Bang.

Physics essentially describes energy systems and how energy interacts and is transferred within those systems. The Universe is a closed system. Space and matter and energy and time came into existence at the Big Bang. What happened before, we don't know, we will never know and frankly it doesn't concern scientists because we have no way to observe it.

If you want to believe God created the Big Bang, fine, but you have to use that same logic and ask what created God? He was there forever before time? Then that logic says that there was something before the Big Bang when time started and we simply don't know. Could have been the collapse and death of a Universe before this one was created. So where did that come from?

Matter and energy interacted with each other following the laws of Physics, specifically the Laws of Thermodynamics and Gravity, and over the next billions of years giant molecular clouds were formed, into galaxies and voids, into stars, into planetary systems and then eventually into living systems like earth if all the conditions were right. That's how nature came to exist under natural law. But how can you understand the meaning of 13 Billion years when you stubbornly subscribe to a mere 6000 year old existence?

I really am amazed at the patience Duane shows with your insistence of your beliefs. Which is actually fine, you are free to believe what you want. But we all know you are not suddenly going to understand or just suddenly get an epiphany of how logic and observation works. Maybe, in fact, you do understand but it's just so hard to let go of all the things you were taught and your lifetime of knowledge just go to waste.

[Habit7]

^^^ You are right that the universe is a closed system. However the Big Bang doesn't explain the genesis of matter, energy, space and even time within that system. The Big Bang explains the existence of the Universe with the pre-existing constituents of matter, energy, space and time.

You are also right when you say "What happened before, we don't know" but I don't agree with "it doesn't concern scientists because we have no way to observe it." It has to concern scientists especially those who believe that everything in this world can be explained by nature. What good is it to postulate how a building was constructed when you cannot account for where the building blocks and other material came from?

So back to my original question, if everything in nature has an antecedent, what preceded nature?

[Bizzare]

If you want to believe God created the Big Bang, fine, but you have to use that same logic and ask what created God? He was there forever before time? Then that logic says that there was something before the Big Bang when time started and we simply don't know. Could have been the collapse and death of a Universe before this one was created. So where did that come from?

The Bible explains that the human mind is limited to logic and earthly understanding. Humans cannot fully comprehend infinity. So, according to the bible, the fact that God has existed forever, meaning there was no beginning and there is no end to his being, is something that requires understanding that is outside of this earth. So when Bible believers use the "everything has a creator" argument to explain earth's existence, they are contradicting the very book they are trying to defend and their own logic (not the bible's), defeats them when they are asked "so who created God?". There are things in the Bible that cannot be explained because of humans limited understanding. The Big Bang Theory makes sense because it is logical to us Humans...... the God story, not so much. We are unable to comprehend infinity.

[maj. tom]

^^^ You are right that the universe is a closed system. However the Big Bang doesn't explain the genesis of matter, energy, space and even time within that system. The Big Bang explains the existence of the Universe with the pre-existing constituents of matter, energy, space and time.

You are also right when you say "What happened before, we don't know" but I don't agree with "it doesn't concern scientists because we have no way to observe it." It has to concern scientists especially those who believe that everything in this world can be explained by nature. What good is it to postulate how a building was constructed when you cannot account for where the building blocks and other material came from?

So back to my original question, if everything in nature has an antecedent, what preceded nature?

What preceded god? What preceded the moment he had the idea to create creation? What happened before 6000 years ago in your creation theory? Where did god get that energy to make creation which is a closed system?

Is he inside this universe? If so, why/how does he break the laws of thermodynamics to perform "miracles?" Is he outside this closed system? How can we observe something outside our universe system without actually being a part of that outside system thermodynamically? Which would mean he doesn't interact with us if he is indeed outside.

Does the energy of God follow entropy? Why can't we observe the effects of that entropy then? I mean he created everything in this universe and everything holds true to the laws of thermodynamics. If he doesn't, don't you think that would cause a big disruption in observations?

[Habit7]

^^^Sorry Bizarre, I saw maj.tom's question on who created God I avoided it because I didnt want to be lead down a rabbit hole. We, occupants of this universe, operate in time (everything must have a beginning and an end). But God creator of this universe and its constituents, is not bound by time (does not have a beginning and an end). Hence God refers to Himself a being eternal thereby not being created or can ever be destroyed. That is why He can say, "In the beginning (time) God created (energy) the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)" Genesis 1:1 (with my inclusions).

So back to my question...

[Kasey]

^^^ You are right that the universe is a closed system. However the Big Bang doesn't explain the genesis of matter, energy, space and even time within that system. The Big Bang explains the existence of the Universe with the pre-existing constituents of matter, energy, space and time.

You are also right when you say "What happened before, we don't know" but I don't agree with "it doesn't concern scientists because we have no way to observe it." It has to concern scientists especially those who believe that everything in this world can be explained by nature. What good is it to postulate how a building was constructed when you cannot account for where the building blocks and other material came from?

So back to my original question, if everything in nature has an antecedent, what preceded nature?

you are so blinded by your arrogance that u do not understand what they asking you.

You asking them "what preceded nature" is like them asking you "what preceded god".

just like you believe that god has no beginning, middle and end, they believe this same quantification for outer space.
just like you believe god is infinite, they believe outer space is infinite.

you understand?

In other words, constituents of matter, energy, or the tendencies for them to be formed always was there, and always will be.

[Habit7]

Hey dont all jump on me at once, I think my response to Bizarre should suffice all. But rather than rag on how i shouldnt ask my question, it would nice to try to answer it, I have been answering all yours.

[maj. tom]

If you want to believe God created the Big Bang, fine, but you have to use that same logic and ask what created God? He was there forever before time? Then that logic says that there was something before the Big Bang when time started and we simply don't know. Could have been the collapse and death of a Universe before this one was created. So where did that come from?

The Bible explains that the human mind is limited to logic and earthly understanding. Humans cannot fully comprehend infinity. So, according to the bible, the fact that God has existed forever, meaning there was no beginning and there is no end to his being, is something that requires understanding that is outside of this earth. So when Bible believers use the "everything has a creator" argument to explain earth's existence, they are contradicting the very book they are trying to defend and their own logic (not the bible's), defeats them when they are asked "so who created God?". There are things in the Bible that cannot be explained because of humans limited understanding. The Big Bang Theory makes sense because it is logical to us Humans...... the God story, not so much. We are unable to comprehend infinity.

Infinity is a human mathematical theory. It is not actually real. There is nothing in reality which is infinite, including the universe. Why then, does it work in math? Humans created math to fit the universe in the ideal way. If the universe were different we would have created different math to fit that ideal universe. Observation of our universe does not exactly fit ideal. It is real but comes in good fine approximation of ideal. This difference is due to entropy of energy.

How could the bible, which humans wrote, explain God in terms of something the human mind invented but cannot understand? No, God is clearly a human concept of infinity which is not real. Time is a concept that is infinite in both directions but it simply cannot be observed. As far as we are concerned, time started at creation. There was nothing before as far as we are concerned because we just cannot observe it. It does not matter if there was something before, we only know about the 2nd law of thermodynamics in space-time since t=0. Well actually 10^-32 seconds. Time may be perceived by our minds to be infinite in the future but it stops existing for you when you die.

[Bizzare]

maj.tom, since you base your beliefs on logic, I'm sure you can agree that all your theories towards creation/God/universe/etc are limited by scientific discovery because logic depends on science. You seem like a person who does tons of research, but your knowledge can only reach as far as modern science allows it to and that can make you very close minded. Your beliefs rely on the discoveries of others, therefore your knowledge is greatly limited. Your beliefs are not stable. They change as new discoveries are made in the fields of science. Never get to arrogant with your beliefs. Your belief system is based on trial & error and new discoveries therefore it is subject to change as time goes by. If you were to live 1000 yrs ago, when the "big bang theory" did not exist, your theories on creation of the universe would have been different.

[maj. tom]

Switch that around, science depends on logic. My belief system does not rely on science. It relies on me being able to think on my own and observe the world for what it really is. I subscribe to science because it adheres to the principles of logic and observation. Through our modern knowledge we have unlocked so many thing about our world which we simply could not explain before. Which means that in the future it is just going to get better in terms of explaining our Universe. And as far as science logic goes, if in the future God is actually observed, we would have to rewrite our scientific theories to fit him in.

But so far we have not observed that and we are still able to explain how our world works and exists with a high degree of accuracy, and even able to predict systems based on the very observation and logic that allows us to create the subject called Science. We can predict things and so we can build and create. We can be engineers of electrons in a microchip and engineers to the code of life. All because of the gradual progress science has made via logic. Science doesn't just exist and we don't pull it out of a book and then say things work because that's the way it's written or that it should work like the way we want it to work. We write science based on experiments, theories and logic. Science is in fact the most natural thing that exists because we are just observing nature and creating theories on how nature works based on experiments. We aren't making up stuff that are completely ridiculous concepts in 2013.

It's not circular and they are stable in the world which I live in today. I have the opportunity to see the Universe and creation for all the grandeur that it really is as confirmed back in the 1960's and cemented many times after that with many experiments and observations. The discovery of others. The scientific theories of others. Scientific theories today are quite stable.(Do you understand what a scientific theory is?) People before now did not have that privilege. A thousand years ago the world was different, so yes accepting the Bible would make sense back then because logic and fairness was largely suppressed in the middle ages. Yeah, burning witches at the stake...

You all have the opportunity today to also understand where we came from but instead choose willingly to let life continue to be a shrouded mystery protected by a great spirit in the sky. That's human psychology: fear and comfort that evolved over primate history to protect ourselves from the harshness of the world.

2500 years ago the Greeks made their own beliefs and theories of how the world worked because that's how far they were scientifically. Aristotle was a great scientist for his time. Archimedes was a genius mathematician for his time. Socrates tried to explain the way humans observed and perceived the world. Hippocrates was an outstanding doctor. They explained the world as they knew it at their time. That was the best they could do. And I am sure that many of these great men in that time did not believe in the Greek religious system. But how they saw their world was wondrous and exciting and it sure as hell was better than sitting around waiting for the Gods on Mt. Olympus to guide them. Nope, they created science and went forward with it, and those ideas they had are the basis of our scientific intellect today. A lot of it was wrong wasn't it? Aristotle made a mess of science until Newton fixed things.

I am always open to the discovery of God and other supernatural events. That's how science works. Once there's evidence. Yes of course we may have a lot of things wrong that will be explained in the future by furthering our knowledge and trying to understand our world and where we came from. But it sure isn't going to get better with the close-mindedness of religious beliefs. So yeah, call me arrogant and limited, but you are the poor man in this story. You cannot see the awe and wonder of life and the possibilities that this universe holds when you keep using that precious book to spin off any sort of advancement we can make.

And now I'm weary of this thread once again and taking a hiatus from it.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Supernatural explanations is not evidence.

So since everything in the natural world came from something natural prior, how do you account for nature? (You are free to include evidences in pie chart or spreadsheet format)

do you want me to post the entire subjects of Science, Biology, Geology, Physics, Astronomy, Archeology etc etc?

Dude that will be committing the logical fallacy of argumentum verbosium. Plus you will be holding me to a different standard than you are holding yourself.

Simply explain how nature came to exist through natural law.

this is a seriously flawed piece of argument

you are saying that because you are claiming a supernatural force, I cannot expect you to provide me with natural evidence. That has to be the most fantastical cop-out ever!

[AdamB]

Each revelation of the past with its laws were for a restricted time , place and people.

does the current revelation fit absolutely with our time , place and people?
The current revelation, that of Islam, absolutely fits with our time, place and people.

TIME: Islam was practised 1400 yrs ago, is being practised now and will continue to be practised in the future for as long as Allah wills.

PLACE: Islam is practised all over the globe...wherever man is able to live.

PEOPLE: Islam does not discriminate, it's laws compasses all classes of people, however you may wish to distinguish, be it race, colour, location (nationality), language, etc. The laws are perfect, the people...well...no man is perfect.


what about the revelations of slavery?
what about it?

what about space travel?

I've always wondered which direction should a Muslim on the International Space station face when praying? Seeing that it rotates and it travels at 27,724 KM/h around the earth that also rotates.

From whencesoever Thou startest forth, turn Thy face in the direction of the sacred Mosque; that is indeed the truth from the Lord. And Allah is not unmindful of what ye do. So from whencesoever Thou startest forth, turn Thy face in the direction of the sacred Mosque; and wheresoever ye are, Turn your face thither: that there be no ground of dispute against you among the people, except those of them that are bent on wickedness; so fear them not, but fear Me; and that I may complete My favours on you, and ye May (consent to) be guided;
—Qur'an, sura 2 (Al-Baqara), verse 149 - 150

It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces Towards East or West; but it is righteousness- to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the Allah-fearing.
—Qur'an, sura 2 (Al-Baqara), verse 177

In April 2006, Malaysian National Space Agency (Angkasa) sponsored a conference[15] of scientists and religious scholars to address the issue of how the Qiblah should be determined when one is in orbit. The conference concluded that the astronaut should determine the location of the Qiblah "according to [their] capability".[16] There have already been several Muslim astronauts, among them the very first being Sultan bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (1985), the latest being the first Muslim woman in space Anousheh Ansari (2006) and the Malaysian angkasawan Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor (2007).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mu ... a_in_space