Math certainly has a great deal of importance, but we can't say it governs everything. For example, math does not govern our conscience. Conscience is that organ of our being that spontaneously judges through our intuition without regard to what one might think. Sometimes you think through a plan, but no matter how hard you try, you just can appease your conscience. So you should listen to that still small voice. It with either condone or admonish an action or thought. Math does not account for this working in one's conscience. When you feel love for someone, there is no math involved. You don't think beforehand, I love this person because 2+3=5. So to say unequivocally math controls everything would be way too presumptuous. Try to be more humble.Originally Posted by Juliet
Math is very concrete. 2+2=4 is very concrete and lifeless. But God is love, spirit, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, personal, holy, righteous, forgiving, immutable, living and so many more qualities in such a vast complex of traits that math really does not compare. God wraps math around his little thumb. These are no word games you accuse of, but real qualities of the Uncreated God. One property that math has similar to God is its immutability. It has laws that are always unchanging reflecting the Creator of the math. There is no such thing as gods, for the Bible says they are just wooden idols and ideas you exalt in your head above God; you make math your idol, for it is what you exalt above God so that you remain unsaved. Crazy stuff!
There is nothing misleading about the uncreated creator. Since nothing in nature is without a cause, then all things in nature have a cause so that the first cause must be created by something outside nature, and the only possibility would the the Uncreated God. To think this is not serious business is to underestimate what is being said, because if you don't get it, guess what? You are going to hell to be eternally separated from God forever with no free get out jail card.The comment that its an "uncreated creator" is so misleading its hard to know whether you're being serious or not. Just for fun, we might say that the property "having a shape" is an intrinsic and necessary property of cubes, so that the rule "having a shape" actually creates cubes... but that doesnt make sense to say. The property "having a shape" is purely descriptive, it describes the nature of cubes. All of the rules of logic are necessary as well, but they dont "create" truths, they are a definition of the nature of truths.
Your example is a fallacy, but you fail to apply this particular fallacy to anything of significance in this discussion. So logically, don't waste time like that.
The dust is referring to the dust of the ground which of course I had not said otherwise. That should be obvious. The earth is a planet of dust. So are all the other planets in other solar systems sharing many of the same properties, so when the Bible says our bodies are from dust it is most accurate. The Holy Spirit chose the word "dust" for a very important reason, because we would know that the universe is at least 13.7 billion years (see Gen. 1.1), and realize the body came from the big bang.Of course, this isnt the first time you linked two unrelated ideas by a similar word: you stated that being created from star dust and the use of "dust" in Genesis actually confirms the truth of Genesis, when the concept of interstellar "dust" would have been completly alien to the authors of Genesis in the first place. The bible's use means that humans were literally molded from clay, then animated with life by God; and definitely that description of dust doesnt match any astronomers definition of dust.
"And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" (Gen. 2.7).
You are missing such a simple point that the dust of the ground is the dust of this planet and this planet comes from the stars. These properties all agree. All the cosmic dust and planetary dust actually have common origins.
I disagree with you because you are wrong, not for the sake of disagreeing. What would be the point in that? I said I disagree with the definition by Descartes, because the definition was wrong. That's a fact.*sigh* You say that the argument is ridiculous and boring because you dont define omnipotence to include bringing about impossible states of affairs... wait for it... wait for it... THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE ARGUMENT IS PROVING! Its stated verbatim in the article itself:
I said above that you're disagreeing with me simply for the sake of disagreement, and the above example proves it: you called an argument ridiculous and boring inspite of the fact that it agrees with you 100%, verbatim, down to the letter. You disagreed with the argument because I was the one who posted it, not because you actually understood what it said.
This is a false statement: "Nor is it possible for an agent to bring about a necessary state of affairs". The agent is God, and He brings about the necessary state of affairs because it is His will to do so and according to His good pleasure. We see the state of affairs today exist because they were necessary. But they were necessary because God decided it was so. So God brought it about it that which is necessary. Otherwise, your should not brought up the point at all, because it would not apply to our discussion.
You really should get back on topic to the 4 Step Proof. Still you can find no problem with it, so is that why you deflect?
I can't prove things happen all by themselves. All I know is more than a trillion things have been seen with their causes and nobody has ever been able to prove even once that something happens all by itself. So the odds are against you big time! I would not want to be in your shoes with your overassuming. Pride begets the fall.Rhetoric without math again. Prove your statement and then claim your Nobel prize, then get back to me.
I was unsaved like you are unsaved now. I was in the old creation just as you are in the old creation at this very moment. Now I am in the new creation, and you have no idea what I am talking about because your spirit is dead to God and has not been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. You can't sense the reality of eternal life. I took calculus in university too, but calculus did not give me eternal life. God's grace did because I fulfilled the condition according to John 3.16 which is what He needs from you to save you. But you can't do this because you are too selfish and egotistical. You just can't give up control of you. You will have to lose your soul first in order to find it.I know for a fact that is false. You've never been where I am, because I have a post-college education, I actually know calculus, I've read more philosophy and more on the historical Christ than you have (certainly more than a single fundamentalists' book of apologetics). In a nutshell, and this is going to sound incredibly arrogant and elitist, but I'm just a better informed person than you are, you've never been at my level.
You may or may not have read more than me. What distinguishes us is that I have evidence for Christ, you have no evidence for calling Him a liar. I am glad to hear you have read more than one single fundamentalist's book on apologetics, but how about dealing with some specifics, since still you have no reason for your hostility other than you are a bad person who doesn't care and wants to go to hell.
People self-declare they are better informed people all the time, but does not make it so. The question is what are you informed with? Is it of truly being saved or is it in your own self-centeredness and following the evil spirit? We both know the answer to that question because you too are made in God's image with a spirit of God-consciousness, so you are without excuse. You're just a bad person like those who killed Him because they were jealous of Him and like so many reject the free gift of salvation, they prefer to go their own independent way as though they are gods unto themselves. If you are better informed than me, then you have no excuse for rejecting Christ, since the evidence for Jesus being God and entering creation is fully proven. A lawyer who won 245 cases in a row is in the Guinness Book of Records. He said the case for the death, deity and resurrection of Christ is the best case he has ever seen. I can see where he is coming from because the proof is in my heart which you are blind to despite your self-proclamations of being so informed. A darkened mind no matter how much he gathers in information will reject the honest to good truth.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks