John Clayton

[Jan Ardena]

Raither,

I'm fine with that but lots of theists disagree.

My apologies, I meant God has no reason to act randomly as everything He does is perfect (by His description). It may well appear random to us due to a lack of knowledge.

exactly what I mean by reinterpretation in light of other knowledge. Here are several translations of the verse; you'll note that only one of these interpretations suggests an expanding Universe and it seems that the translator was not absolutely sure of his interpretation:

The words clearly translate to what he has said. He probably wasn't sure what it meant, hence the question mark.

Therefore it seems to me that whether or not Mohammed was literally saying the Universe is expanding is rather questionable. Only knowledge provided by science gives any surety to this interpretation.

Not if the translations are correct, which they are.;
The term “heaven” is a translation of the arabic word sama which means “the extra-terrestrial world. ‘We are expanding it’ is the translation of the plural present participle musi’una of the verb anus’a meaning ‘to make wider, more spacious, to extend to expand’.
Muhammad (pbuh) talked about the expansion of the universe 600 years ago, scientists discovered it last century. What scientists have done is to prove that that particular verse is scientifically sound and is to be believed.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

LOL!!! I’m not surprised. I mis-wrote random for un-random, again I apologies.

I don't think there are any that are error free.

I’m not of the same opinion.

Certainly, the foibles of man introduce errors into any method. What seems to me the best approach is to never completely rely on any one method.

Sometimes there is only one method and no amount of skating round the edge will do.

Then why bother with any particular method. It seems to be it is up to the individual to find their own path and to attempt to refute anyone's personal approach is quite presumptuous.

From a spiritual perspective we are both spiritual and material (living entities). Spiritually we are one, materially we differ according to our nature. So all living beings are classified into different levels of quality. There are different levels of self-realisation for different grades of people.

What source?

The Holy scripture.

The problem is not how truth is acquired; the problem is discerning truth from falsehood.

Truth and knowledge aren’t the same thing. Knowledge can vary whereas truth is one. Whichever way you look at it whether spiritually or materialy, we are walking expressions of the truth. In other words we are truth (in our pure state), our problem is we don’t know who or what we are in real terms, only from our present existence. This is why there is knowledge whether descending or ascending. The idea is to use such knowledge to uncover the truth. To some who is of sober mind and intelligence, discerning the truth from falsehood is not a problem, because they have no desire to have anything this world has to offer.

Such as?

It means you have a prefixed idea of what the truth should be. Whether God exists or not, doesn’t matter, so uncovering truth is not you’re goal, but shaping it. It means you only argue to refute any notions of God. It means you are defending something…………

How about the 6 days of the Genesis creation?

In the Qur’an the word yaum, plural ayaum is translated by its most common meaning as ‘day’. But in actuality it should be taken to mean ‘period(s)’. In Arabic, it tends to mean more the daytime light than the length of time that lapses between one day’s sunrise and the next. The plural ayaum can mean not just days, but also long lengths of time, or an indefinate period of time.
It becomes clearer when we examine other parts of the Qur’an (32.5) & (70.4)….

“…..in a period of time (yaum) whereof the measure is a thousand years of your reckoning.”

“…….in a period of time (yaum) whereof the measure is 50,0

Very often when religion makes an accurate 'revelation' about the Universe that information was already available. One might look to the 'miracle' that the word meaning 'day' was used 365 times in the Quran. Yet the knowledge that there were (approximately) 365 days in a year was known at the time.

That’s a fair point although I disagree, but who could have known the universe was expanding? And if that is truth, then what else is true in the Qur’an?

What I meant was is there independent corroboration of this Vedic interpretation as being correct.

How much more independent than Vedic literature, can you get? Within such literature there is information detailed where scientific knowlodge is now beginning to unravel, such as the expansion of the universe.

All of the accounts of Siddhartha that I have read do not depict him as being thought of as a God but strictly as a man who had reached enlightenment.

His role was to divert the abominable actions of the atheists by claiming there was no God, and thier action are in vain. So what purpose would being a plenary expansion of God, served in his mission? We know he was an incarnation of God, through the prediction and depiction of this personality, in the scriptures.

The idea that people were led to believe in him as a God seems utterly foreign to any of the Buddhists texts that I have read.

Of course it would.

I would bet that there is a lot of room for error and interpretation in that prediction.

tatah kalau sampravrte
Sammohaya sura-dvisham
buddho namnanjana-suta
Kikatesu bhavishyati[p/i]

“In the beginning of Kali-yuga (the present age) the Personality of Godhead will appear in the province of Gaya as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, to bewilder the demons who are always envious of the devotees.”

But this is indeed how it happens. Atoms and molecules are not mysteriously drawn towards each other to form specific combinations. They bump into each other at random until, sometimes, they fit together and combine.

I do not doubt that particles bump into each other, but I don’t believe they combine to form things like watches or people. I believe that these things are combined by some deliberate act of consciousness. It just seems fundamentally absurd, the idea that all these things being some freak chance accident.

It does actually. It indicates that if there is indeed a Creator, it is not necessary for him to tinker around building plants and animals and planets and such.

What we term as “nature” is regarded as His Nature (God’s), in all bona-fide scripture. Nature cannot act on it own, there has to be some form of energy and the energy must come from a source and must be directed in certain ways. So to separate God from nature is impossible in any debate, otherwise we are not discussing God as depicted.

That the Universe was created in such a way that these things evolve on their own.

I can understand how you have come to that conclusion, but I cannot see how such order can be attained and maintained purely by chance.

Many religions describe a God that often influences the world directly,

Some examples?

I've no quarrel with a transcendent God except when people start telling me that they know something about him.

Why shouldn’t people know about Him.

Any God that would condemn me for this I have no reverence for.

Why would God condemn you for it?

Most religious texts I view as expressions of the human condition, which are also truthful and sometimes very insightful but in the way that a novel or a poem is truthful.

Still doesn’t explain how Muhammed (pbuh) knew the universe was expanding though, does it?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
I meant God has no reason to act randomly as everything He does is perfect (by His description). It may well appear random to us due to a lack of knowledge.

Okay, I'll go with this for a moment because what you've said is possible but I'd like to elucidate the ramifications. Granting that we do not know everything we could assume that God's influence upon the Universe is so dispersed and subtle that it is undetectable. This is quite different, however, than the common assertion that God is an observable active force in daily life. It eliminates the possibility of us knowing of him through his interaction with the existent world. It also makes me wonder about the intentions of God that he would hide himself from us if his existence is so intrinsically important to our welfare.

Not if the translations are correct, which they are.

So your telling me that 3 of the 4 translators were incompetent and the one who came closest to the "true" meaning was simply unsure for some unknown reason not because there were alternative possible translations? I'm sorry, but my position still stands, I am not convinced.

What scientists have done is to prove that that particular verse is scientifically sound and is to be believed.

This is what I said.

I’m not of the same opinion.

You know of a method that is inerrant? Please do demonstrate.

Sometimes there is only one method and no amount of skating round the edge will do.

I disagree, to become locked into a single method makes one blind.

So all living beings are classified into different levels of quality. There are different levels of self-realisation for different grades of people.

That's a rather loaded assertion. Who determines the relevant values upon which one might determine such a qualitative difference? This sounds to me like no more than another way of saying that your beliefs are correct and others are false.

The Holy scripture.

Which holy scripture would that be?

Truth and knowledge aren’t the same thing. Knowledge can vary whereas truth is one.

False knowledge is not knowledge, it is an erroneous belief.

The idea is to use such knowledge to uncover the truth. To some who is of sober mind and intelligence, discerning the truth from falsehood is not a problem, because they have no desire to have anything this world has to offer.

Pardon?

It means you have a prefixed idea of what the truth should be. Whether God exists or not, doesn’t matter, so uncovering truth is not you’re goal, but shaping it. It means you only argue to refute any notions of God. It means you are defending something

Absolutely not. I do not have prefixed ideas as to what is truth or not, I am always open to correction. I am constantly testing assertions, both my own and other peoples. Nor am I out to refute every notion of God, many of my writings here display that I am indeed open to certain conceptions of God. I have often stated that although I am technically an atheist in that I do not believe in God the term does not fully describe me.

In the Qur’an the word yaum, plural ayaum is translated by its most common meaning as ‘day’. But in actuality it should be taken to mean ‘period(s)’.

Be that as it may, we may then examine the order of created things in comparison to the physical record.

That’s a fair point although I disagree, but who could have known the universe was expanding? And if that is truth, then what else is true in the Qur’an?

The question is; is the Quran reliably correct in its depiction of the physical world and is this depiction meaningful or does one have to dance around in metaphor?

How much more independent than Vedic literature, can you get?

:bugeye: Vedic literature is not independent of the Vedic position.

“In the beginning of Kali-yuga (the present age) the Personality of Godhead will appear in the province of Gaya as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, to bewilder the demons who are always envious of the devotees.”

I can find nothing consistent to validate this. First off Buddha means "enlightened one" and is therefore a title and not a name referencing a specific person. Who Anjana was in relation to Siddhartha is inconstant, sometimes being depicted as his mother sometimes as his maternal grandfather, and not at all referenced in the independent sources that I have located. Finally, most of the independent sources I can find place his birth in Nepal and not Bihar. Reliable information about Siddhartha is rather limited. The rest is myth and guesswork.

I do not doubt that particles bump into each other, but I don’t believe they combine to form things like watches or people. I believe that these things are combined by some deliberate act of consciousness. It just seems fundamentally absurd, the idea that all these things being some freak chance accident.

This is an argument from ignorance. Just because the idea seems absurd does not mean it's not true, the world does not conform to our beliefs. The fact is that particles do indeed bump into each other to combine and form more complex arrangements. Indeed, we have found that all of the basic chemicals required for life not only occur naturally but are quite abundant in the Universe. All that's really required are enough 'rolls of the die'. When one considers literal oceans of random combinations over a billion or so years the infinitesimal chance of life occurring is almost assured by the tremendous number of 'tries'.

Consider that one has a 1 in 12,000,000 or so chance of winning the lottery if only one ticket is purchased. If one purchases 12,000,000 randomly generated tickets one is almost assured of winning.

Nature cannot act on it own, there has to be some form of energy and the energy must come from a source and must be directed in certain ways. So to separate God from nature is impossible in any debate, otherwise we are not discussing God as depicted.

The energy is already in the Universe. If you'd like to say that God put it here I have no problem with that (although I see no reason for the assumption).

I can understand how you have come to that conclusion, but I cannot see how such order can be attained and maintained purely by chance.

Because it's not pure chance. The Universe operates under certain fundamental laws that determine all of the activity we see. Within these conditions there is a large element of chance but everything that happens can be attributed to these forces.

Why shouldn’t people know about Him.

One cannot impose limits upon the infinite.

Why would God condemn you for it?

My point exactly. But some theists keep telling me he will.

Still doesn’t explain how Muhammed (pbuh) knew the universe was expanding though, does it?

It is my assertion that he didn't and if he did it was nothing more than a lucky guess.

~Raithere

 

[hshatfield]

At first I thought Clayton was actually one of the better creation "scientists" (not that that is saying very much). I now see that I was completely wrong. Read his course on basic evidence.
http://www.doesgodexist.org
As you can see it is nothing more than typical creationist kindergarden crap. This puts him on the same level as "Dr." Kent Hovind. Most of this is far too stupid to be worthy of formal (or informal for that matter) refutation, but I think I will refute some of it when I have more time anyway.

Sorry Jan, but there is a limit to how silly one can get and still be taken seriously. This is simply inexcusable ignorance and possibly dishonesty.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Raithere,

Granting that we do not know everything we could assume that God's influence upon the Universe is so dispersed and subtle that it is undetectable.

That would depend on the individual. An analogy would be the government. Some people are more aware of the influence of the government than others. Some have no idea. It is both a personal and relative situation.

It eliminates the possibility of us knowing of him through his interaction with the existent world.

First you must have some understanding of his interaction. Remember, part of His description is that everything is emanating from His self, therefore everything is a part of Him. What to speak of influence.

So your telling me that 3 of the 4 translators were incompetent.....

…………. “Some translators who were unable to grasp the meaning of the latter provide translations that appear to me to be mistaken, e.g. "we give generously" (R. Blachere). Others sense the meaning, but are afraid to commit themselves: Ramidullah in his translation of the Qur'ân talks of the widening of the heavens and space, but he includes a question mark…….”[/i]
http://www.salaf.indiaaccess.com/atheist/evolution_of_heavens.htm

That's a rather loaded assertion. Who determines the relevant values upon which one might determine such a qualitative difference?

The values are already determined by nature.

This sounds to me like no more than another way of saying that your beliefs are correct and others are false.

Why?

Which holy scripture would that be?

The Bible, Qur’an and Bhagavad Gita for starters.

…..many of my writings here display that I am indeed open to certain conceptions of God.

Why only certain conceptions?
And, what is the source which allows only CERTAIN conceptions?

I have often stated that although I am technically an atheist in that I do not believe in God the term does not fully describe me.

To be honest, it doesn’t matter to me what “you term” yourself as, nor anybody else, I learn about you through discussion, and then make up my own mind.

Be that as it may, we may then examine the order of created things in comparison to the physical record.

Lets!

The question is; is the Quran reliably correct in its depiction of the physical world and is this depiction meaningful or does one have to dance around in metaphor?

“The heaven, We have built it with power, indeed We are EXPANDING IT.”
What do you think?

Vedic literature is not independent of the Vedic position.

What do you regard as “the Vedic position.”

I can find nothing consistent to validate this. First off Buddha means "enlightened one" and is therefore a title and not a name referencing a specific person.

“namnah-of the name; anjana-sutah- whose mother was anjana;

Who Anjana was in relation to Siddhartha is inconstant, sometimes being depicted as his mother sometimes as his maternal grandfather, and not at all referenced in the independent sources that I have located.

Then change your sources.

When one considers literal oceans of random combinations over a billion or so years the infinitesimal chance of life occurring is almost assured by the tremendous number of 'tries'.

We have already discussed this issue. I wasn’t convinced then.
“The odds against the spontaneous appearance of an enzyme system capable of sustaining even the simplest form of life are 1 with 40,000 zeroes to 1.” (Hoyle)
This is as improbable as a blindfolded marksman hitting the tip of a particular hair 1500 times with successive random shots from 1,000,000 kilometres. One can have faith in such infinitesimal probabilities, but IMHO, it is not a scientific explanation.

Consider that one has a 1 in 12,000,000 or so chance of winning the lottery if only one ticket is purchased. If one purchases 12,000,000 randomly generated tickets one is almost assured of winning.

That is because the conditions are so, but if there are 100,000,000 tickets and one still only buys 12,000,000, ones chances are reduced and so on.

The energy is already in the Universe. If you'd like to say that God put it here I have no problem with that (although I see no reason for the assumption).

Where did the energy come from?

Because it's not pure chance. The Universe operates under certain fundamental laws that determine all of the activity we see. Within these conditions there is a large element of chance but everything that happens can be attributed to these forces.

Please give an example.

One cannot impose limits upon the infinite.

Knowing about someone does not impose limits on the person. The person who is expressing their knowledge may be limited, but in no way can their limitation have any bearing on the other person.

My point exactly. But some theists keep telling me he will.

Some theists say homosexuality is cool in Gods eyes, despite knowing that it is an abomination to Him.

It is my assertion that he didn't and if he did it was nothing more than a lucky guess.

That’s entirely up to you. But it is only your opinion. As far as I am concerned the evidence is their in black and white.

Love
Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by hshatfield
As you can see it is nothing more than typical creationist kindergarden crap.

Most of this is far too stupid to be worthy of formal (or informal for that matter) refutation, but I think I will refute some of it when I have more time anyway.

So, i'll take it that you don't believe in God then?

Sorry Jan, but there is a limit to how silly one can get and still be taken seriously. This is simply inexcusable ignorance and possibly dishonesty.

Don't apologise, that is your opinion.
As an older person, my advise to you is don't get stuck in one way of thinking. God and 'real religion', isn't what you think it is.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[hshatfield]

Jan,

So, i'll take it that you don't believe in God then?

To answer your question, no. However you are missing the point. I can't stand it when people are this intellectually dishonest. Just to let you know, I am aware that god's existence does not depend on the validity of Clayton's arguments.

Don't apologise, that is your opinion.
As an older person, my advise to you is don't get stuck in one way of thinking. God and 'real religion', isn't what you think it is.

Please explain to me what "real religion" is. I will expect you to back up any assertions that you make.

I think I need to show you just dishonest Clayton is. I found something that I just couldn't let go so I contacted him. My comments are in blue.

"Right from the start you are being completely dishonest.

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth” -- Genesis 1:1.
“The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be” – Carl Sagan, Cosmos.


The two statements above are both statements of faith. Neither can be experimentally verified and both make assumptions. The two statements also offer a remarkable contrast. The first statement indicates:



1. There was a beginning.
2. The beginning was caused.
3. The cause was “ELOHIM” – God.

The second statement indicates:

1. There was no beginning.
2. The cosmos is self-existing and thus uncaused.
3. The universe was not created and thus is the product of non-intelligence."

Lie ho, lie ho, its off to the quote mine we go...
Oh, sorry. All Carl Sagan is doing is giving a definition for the word cosmos. If something existed before the universe, it would be part of the cosmos. If god is what created the universe, then god would be part of the cosmos. The universe is not the same thing as the cosmos. His statement says nothing about the beginning of the universe or intelligence. You just want to make atheism look like a silly position so you just keep on lying about it. That is why you say, over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, that atheists believe in a steady state universe. I have news for you. If you tell a lie enough times, some people may start to believe it, but it will never make the lie true. If you had actually bothered to read into his material, then you would know that he talks about the expanding universe and the big bang and does not take the steady state position. You are either being ignorant or dishonest. Which is it? Don't ignore this either "

I can't wait to see how he tries to worm his way out of this.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
That would depend on the individual. An analogy would be the government. Some people are more aware of the influence of the government than others. Some have no idea. It is both a personal and relative situation.

You came close Jan but now you're backing away again. The government's influence is measurable whether one is aware of the government or not. This would also apply to God's influence.

First you must have some understanding of his interaction. Remember, part of His description is that everything is emanating from His self, therefore everything is a part of Him. What to speak of influence.

I've no problem with this (other than it is an unnecessary complication). But it does not refute my assertion that there would be no way of knowing about God.

http://www.salaf.indiaaccess.com/at..._of_heavens.htm

And it continues: " Finally, there are those who arm themselves with authorized scientific opinion in their commentaries and give the meaning stated here. This is true in the case of the Muntakab, a book of commentaries edited by the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, Cairo."

This actually demonstrates my point quite nicely. The Muntakab was written in 1973, long after the scientific discovery of the expanding universe. As I stated earlier, "Only knowledge provided by science gives any surety to this interpretation."

The values are already determined by nature.

Please do demonstrate.

Why?

Because it's self-affirming.

The Bible, Qur’an and Bhagavad Gita for starters.

Okay, what then is the common definition of religion in these three sources?

Why only certain conceptions?

Because some are logically or empirically invalid and others are terribly problematic.

To be honest, it doesn’t matter to me what “you term” yourself as, nor anybody else, I learn about you through discussion, and then make up my own mind.

Ah, but do you know everything about me through our discussions?

Lets!

Which source do you wish to work from?

What do you think?

Not much, see above.

What do you regard as “the Vedic position.”

It doesn't matter. Paradigms are self-affirming, this is why it's important not to rely exclusively upon any single one.

Then change your sources.

Until they agree with your preconceptions; why? I looked for independent verification and found basically nothing. This doesn't do much for the credibility of your source.

One can have faith in such infinitesimal probabilities, but IMHO, it is not a scientific explanation.

No, it's not a scientific explanation because that would require empirical evidence which is suggestive but inconclusive at this point. Mathematically, however, it is far more likely than Hoyle suggests. Hoyle vastly understated the probability; better models, built upon far more evidence than Hoyle had, suggest a much higher probability.

Where did the energy come from?

Don't know yet. There are a variety of hypotheses but the matter remains evidentially inconclusive for now.

Please give an example.

The pattern of waves on the ocean.

Knowing about someone does not impose limits on the person. The person who is expressing their knowledge may be limited, but in no way can their limitation have any bearing on the other person.

God is not a person, God is infinite. To know something is to differentiate it from other things which it is not. If God is all then how do you differentiate God from that which God is not?

Some theists say homosexuality is cool in Gods eyes, despite knowing that it is an abomination to Him.

Then he should not have created homosexuals.

That’s entirely up to you. But it is only your opinion. As far as I am concerned the evidence is their in black and white.

I would suggest that you're not discriminating enough regarding such evidence.

~Raithere

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Originally posted by Raithere
Then he should not have created homosexuals.
~Raithere

Recent studies show further indication that homosexuality is inborn and not learned, so how can it be an abomination? Perhaps this study is statistically significant in that not only is homosexuality an inborn genetic trait but also a more evolved one on an evolutionary scale. The days of the Bible's usefulness are long gone. To condemn one of God's creations is to also condemn God. Homosexuals contain the One Spirit of God just like we all do. If Xians can't believe that, then they believe in a false god.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by hshatfield
To answer your question, no.

I was being sarcastic.
You need to chill out a bit.

I am aware that god's existence does not depend on the validity of Clayton's arguments.

You don’t know how good that makes me feel.

Please explain to me what "real religion" is. I will expect you to back up any assertions that you make.

Real religion is a method by which one can become self-realised. By becoming thus situated one can know who and what one is, and understand God the Supreme Self from which everything emanates.

I can't wait to see how he tries to worm his way out of this.

Let us know how it pans out.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Raithere
The government's influence is measurable whether one is aware of the government or not. This would also apply to God's influence.

The influence is measurable according to the individuals understanding, this also applies to God’s influence.

I've no problem with this (other than it is an unnecessary complication). But it does not refute my assertion that there would be no way of knowing about God.

It is only an unnecessary complication if it is viewed as such by the individual.
You can know about God, but first there has to be understanding, which again is the choice of the individual.

This actually demonstrates my point quite nicely. The Muntakab was written in 1973, long after the scientific discovery of the expanding universe.

The point remains that it was stated by Muhammed (PBUH), hundreds of years ago.

As I stated earlier, "Only knowledge provided by science gives any surety to this interpretation."

You seem to think that science is separate from ‘religion.’ Remember scientists are people and people are present and conscious because God is present and conscious (IMHO). In the Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna says; “I am the ability in man.” Science as I stated earlier is ‘knowledge’ and as such has a responsibility to uncover knowledge of particular things. So I agree that science gives surety to this interpretation, but that is the purpose of science IMHO, to empircally try and prove the existence of God. This is why I have great respect for Einstein.

Please do demonstrate.

I could probably explain it, but what would be the point?

Because it's self-affirming.

It has nothing to do with self, you are what you are in this world, period.

Okay, what then is the common definition of religion in these three sources?

That ones real position is to serve God.

Ah, but do you know everything about me through our discussions?

Of course not. But I work with what I do know about you from our discussions.

Which source do you wish to work from?

No 'one' in particular.

It doesn't matter. Paradigms are self-affirming, this is why it's important not to rely exclusively upon any single one.

That is not an acceptable answer to the question.

Mathematically, however, it is far more likely than Hoyle suggests. Hoyle vastly understated the probability; better models, built upon far more evidence than Hoyle had, suggest a much higher probability.

Are you familiar with the English term “shifting the goalposts,” because that is exactly what you constantly do.

Don't know yet. There are a variety of hypotheses but the matter remains evidentially inconclusive for now.

I bet it does.

The pattern of waves on the ocean.

How do you know it is not under the control of God?

God is not a person, God is infinite.

Ultimately, God is a Person. This is corroborated by all the major religious texts.

To know something is to differentiate it from other things which it is not.

Nonsense! To know something means one has understood that particular thing.

If God is all then how do you differentiate God from that which God is not?

Very simply, you try and understand who and what God is via a particular scripture.

Then he should not have created homosexuals.

He didn’t. He created man.

I would suggest that you're not discriminating enough regarding such evidence.

Your suggestion has be duly noted.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jenyar]

God is not a person, God is infinite. To know something is to differentiate it from other things which it is not. If God is all then how do you differentiate God from that which God is not?

You say that as if infinite meant "includes everything". God does not include evil, so that is at least one thing that does not define God, and one thing we know about Him. And not everything that happens is God's will. That means not everything is directed by God. That excludes another series of things, and is another bit of knowledge. And so on.

 

[Raithere]

That which is greater than God

Originally posted by Jenyar
You say that as if infinite meant "includes everything". God does not include evil, so that is at least one thing that does not define God, and one thing we know about Him. And not everything that happens is God's will. That means not everything is directed by God. That excludes another series of things, and is another bit of knowledge. And so on.

Then God, as you have defined him here, is neither omnipotent nor omniscient nor is he infinite.
That must then exist which is greater than God.

Your God is shrinking with every assertion you make.
Which is, of course, my point.

~Raithere

 

[hshatfield]

Clayton just replied. He refused to address my points because he said I was too hateful. What I posted was not the only thing that I sent him. To be honest I was quite nasty with him, because I hold anyone that dishonest in utter contempt, especially if they are an educator such as Clayton. He says he will not even read any more of my e-mails. I don't intend to let him get away that easy. It is clear that I caught him lying for Jesus. Will someone else please send him the Carl Sagan quote with my objection to it. It might be best not to mention my name. I just want him to know that he is a demonstrable liar.

 

[Jenyar]

Re: That which is greater than God

Originally posted by Raithere
Then God, as you have defined him here, is neither omnipotent nor omniscient nor is he infinite.
That must then exist which is greater than God.

Your God is shrinking with every assertion you make.
Which is, of course, my point.

~Raithere

Hold on a second. It's your concept of God that's shrinking with every assertion I make, which is why I make them. You haven't defined infinite. God is infinite in time, in strength, in wisdom... all these things - but not just "infinite" fullstop. We can't even comprehend infinity by our standards, what to say God's infiniteness. I suspect that even your definitions of omnipotence and omniscience is philosophical rather than biblical.

God is not limited to "infinity" as you would have Him be. You might think it isn't a limit, but it's a box you try to put Him in. And it seems, also a strawman for the possibility of a "greater god". Having complete knowledge of a place and what is happening does not automatically put Him there, or make Him the author of the events. You forget that God in the Bible has a will - He chooses where and when He appears and what He does according to His infinite wisdom.

 

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by hshatfield
The two statements above are both statements of faith. Neither can be experimentally verified and both make assumptions. The two statements also offer a remarkable contrast. The first statement indicates:

1. There was a beginning.
2. The beginning was caused.
3. The cause was “ELOHIM” – God.

The second statement indicates:

1. There was no beginning.
2. The cosmos is self-existing and thus uncaused.
3. The universe was not created and thus is the product of non-intelligence."

In The universe in a nutshell Stephen Hawking comes closer to statement one than statement two, although of course he doesn't think that means God was involved, and he specifies a "beginning" as a chronological point of reference that does not exist universally speaking.

But for one thing, he says if the universe was indeed infinite in size and always existed, every line of sight must end in a star and all their light would have already reached us. That would make the night sky as bright as daylight. Obviously this isn't the case, so he concludes that the universe as we observe it had a beginning.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by hshatfield
He refused to address my points because he said I was too hateful.

Surprise surprise!!!

To be honest I was quite nasty with him,

Learn to control your intolerance, if you cannot get rid altogether.

because I hold anyone that dishonest in utter contempt, especially if they are an educator such as Clayton.

What about your own dishonesty? Or don't you think you're dishonest?

It is clear that I caught him lying for Jesus.

What is clear is that you have no self-control.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[hshatfield]

Jan,

What about your own dishonesty? Or don't you think you're dishonest?

If you are asking if I have ever said or done a dishonest thing, then the answer is yes. I am sure you have too. If you are asking if I would describe myself as dishonest, then the answer is no. Can you give me even one example where I have been dishonest here? If you can show me that I have been dishonest, then I will apologize to everyone for my hypocrisy. If you can't then you shouldn't have said anything in the first place.

What is clear is that you have no self-control.

I am not good at controlling myself when debating with people like this. I will not deny that. However, that doesn't change anything for Clayton. He is still a liar. Please show me how his statement could be anything other than a lie or just him being so inexcusably lazy that he doesn't even do the few minutes of research to find that Carl Sagan doesn't believe that the universe had no beginning. Better yet, why don't you ask him yourself? What are you afraid of if you think he is telling the truth? He isn't like me at all. No matter how abusive my criticisms were he never replied with even one unkind word. You don't need to worry about being flamed. If you do this, please tell me what his response is. He always replied very quickly to me. The thing that I will warn you about is that he is VERY evasive. I predict that he will not even address the point and talk about something completely different.

 

[Raithere]

Re: Re: That which is greater than God

Originally posted by Jenyar
You haven't defined infinite.

1. Having no boundaries or limits. (AHD)

God is not limited to "infinity" as you would have Him be. You might think it isn't a limit, but it's a box you try to put Him in.

As you can see above this doesn't make sense. How can God as "that which has no boundaries or limits" be limited?

And it seems, also a strawman for the possibility of a "greater god".

If that exists which God is not then there must be that which contains both God and that which God is not. Ergo, that exists which is greater than God.

But you are correct in that I am not limiting myself to Biblical definitions. I can find no reason do so.

~Raithere

 

[hshatfield]

Jan,

Could you at least tell me if you decided to contact Clayton or not? I think you have had enough time to decide.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by hshatfield
Jan,

Could you at least tell me if you decided to contact Clayton or not? I think you have had enough time to decide.

I'm very sorry hshatfield, but i don't think there is any point, as i would not describe him (Clayton) as a 'liar', nor am i particularly interested in what Carl Sagan believes, as it is on no real consequence in the big scheme of things.
If you wish to debate or discuss any of the points you mentioned, i would be happy to.

Love

Jan Ardena.