Creation / TOE

[Sparkey]

sparrowhawke i am not a subscriper to the toe god did and does allow us to study the creation he made. and me thinks that he would want us to as it make us glorify him even more.

even the athiests marvel at nature.

science isnt well we cant know this or that, its lets inquire and learn from what we can and continue to learn.

Agreed, I tried to point out that no amount of knowledge can surround God. He can not be "compassed about". He can not be budged and there is no "shadow of turning" in Him. God is Love, is not a liar and to me? There is no conflict between what we observe in nature and what we read in the word of truth.

[1] If I speak with the languages of men and of angels, but don't have love, I have become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal. [2] If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but don't have love, I am nothing. [3] If I dole out all my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body to be burned, but don't have love, it profits me nothing.

• [4] Love is patient
• and is kind;
• love doesn't envy.
• Love doesn't brag,
• is not proud,
• [5] doesn't behave itself inappropriately,
• doesn't seek its own way,
• is not provoked,
• takes no account of evil;
• [6] doesn't rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;
• [7] bears all things,
• believes all things,
• hopes all things,
• endures all things.

[8] Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will be done away with. Where there are various languages, they will cease. Where there is knowledge, it will be done away with.

[9] For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; [10] but when that which is complete has come, then that which is partial will be done away with. [11] When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child. Now that I have become a man, I have put away childish things. [12] For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, even as I was also fully known. [13] But now faith, hope, and love remain -- these three. The greatest of these is love.

[1 Corinthians 13:1-13 HNV] - formatting and emphasis mine (Sparrow)

__________________________________

[EDIT]:

Let's pretend that we (all mankind) have advanced so far in mathematical study and knowledge that there is no longer any mystery left. Calculus and mathematical theory (in this scenario) is now merely outdated concepts that only served as stepping stones to our super-knowledge.

@ Jason: I have not tried here to diminish the usefulness of calculus.
@ Coffee: Your statement, "Infinity - X is meaningless. Infinity is not a number, but a concept", is false. The set of all number includes both Real and Unreal (Irrational) numbers. Irrational numbers are defined as the number zero and any number that can not be expressed as a fraction of integers. Hence pi is a number. Please see: The Complete Book of Algebra and Geometry: Grades 5-6
By American Education Publishing

 

[jasoncran]

keep in mind that cl doesnt see the limits that you and i do. we cant in this present body understand the the things of the Lord, fullt as we cant fathom him. that i do see.

however, i wonder if cl believe that men will elvove into a higher being and can aquire the knowledge to be like a God.

 

[Lance_Iguana]

keep in mind that cl doesnt see the limits that you and i do.

What limits? What is the secret knowledge that he dosen't see?

we cant in this present body understand the the things of the Lord, fullt as we cant fathom him. that i do see.

You do know that both of you are actually talking about Pantheism right? If your scenario is correct, then you have proven Pantheism. Theistic Gods are set in stone and have a definitive concept. If you don't have a concept of God, but consider him omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, then he/she/it is Pantheistic.

however, i wonder if cl believe that men will elvove into a higher being and can aquire the knowledge to be like a God.

I don't think you understand what evolution is, and you shouldn't be projecting these questions out in the open unless you are directly asking him.

 

[Sparkey]

Welcome, Mr Iguana!

We're still friends, I trust? Long time, no see. My bad. Hope things are well for you, sir.

~Sparrow

 

[Lance_Iguana]

Welcome, Mr Iguana!

We're still friends, I trust? Long time, no see. My bad. Hope things are well for you, sir.

~Sparrow

Its pretty good. Just working and studying.

 

[jasoncran]

lance, you miss the point , God is on a different level. and we die he doesnt, when we are resurrected we will be like him and will have eternal life and will be able to know what he does as we can have the rest of eternity to learn. is this a biblical idea as its plainly stated, not really but in the new age we wont die, and one might think that the eons will unfold to us as we can study them without the hindress of death.

on the evo, some men do belive that we can elvove into a higher being. i know that isnt a scientific but a belief

we cant be everywhere and all the time and yet human and fully knowledgeable(omnipotent), that is what i meant by limits.

can we be GOD via science, and change ourselve to the akira entitity?

i am human God isnt, is science somehow able to make one an akira?in the present and in the future foreseeably?

 

[coffeeelover]

@ Coffee: Your statement, "Infinity - X is meaningless. Infinity is not a number, but a concept", is false. The set of all number includes both Real and Unreal (Irrational) numbers. Irrational numbers are defined as the number zero and any number that can not be expressed as a fraction of integers. Hence pi is a number. Please see: The Complete Book of Algebra and Geometry: Grades 5-6
By American Education Publishing

Oh Sparrow. I read the the section of remedial math you linked to, but alas, no mention of infinity as a number. Perhaps you just didn't understand it, or don't remember it correctly.

Try this link.

Math Forum - Ask Dr. Math

 

[coffeeelover]

keep in mind that cl doesnt see the limits that you and i do. we cant in this present body understand the the things of the Lord, fullt as we cant fathom him. that i do see.

however, i wonder if cl believe that men will elvove into a higher being and can aquire the knowledge to be like a God.

No I don't believe mankind will evolve into a higher being.

 

[jasoncran]

ok, then that being the case, with the toe its logical to assume that as a species we will die out and all that we did will rot and be lost.

and we cant assume that another species that has intellegence will study us and adapt our ideas and so forth.

or another one elvolve, thus we cant be fully knowledgable and omnipresent and ommnisciensce and so on.

 

[Sparkey]

Oh Sparrow. I read the the section of remedial math you linked to, but alas, no mention of infinity as a number. Perhaps you just didn't understand it, or don't remember it correctly.

Try this link.

Math Forum - Ask Dr. Math

I took your suggestion and you are correct. I stand corrected. "Mathematics is based on formal rules that govern the subject. When a list of formal rules applies to a type of object (e.g., "a number") those rules must always apply — no exceptions!" (Quoting Calculus/Infinite Limits - WikiBooks)

But do you see how you have helped to prove my assertion that no amount of knowledge can define God?

The formula shows that man needs limits. Math itself is ill-equipped to express this concept. The truth of what you say is demonstrated because the formula (to make sense to us) depends on how much we can control (or limit) the degree that 'x' varies away from 2.

This conundrum is similar in nature to when we consider trying to repeatedly divide any given length in half. To our mindset it is fairly simple. Any given length can be divided in half. Simple, right? If "X" is equal to a foot in length? Then ½ · X = 6 inches. Divide that in half again and we get 3 inches. All these real numbers are easy to understand, right? But now, let us (as a thought experiment) continue the process, no, not Ad Infinitum, but to the limits of known reality. Continue to divide the length until it no longer represents any known space. What we find is a number that can no longer be divided and still represent any reality. That number is approximately one-1020th of the diameter of a proton and there is no hope of directly probing this length scale in the foreseeable future.

Fact is, we can neither limit nor control God.

This means, that the same amount of 'difficulty' (or lack of difficulty) is encountered by God to have created the entire universe (something we consider "large") as would be encountered for Him to do any thing, even to answer a single prayer, mine or yours.

Per the above quoted source (WikiBooks) we do have a formula that does mean something - even though it used

, and

is not a number. It needs to be "reinterpreted".

 

[coffeeelover]

ok, then that being the case, with the toe its logical to assume that as a species we will die out and all that we did will rot and be lost.

and we cant assume that another species that has intellegence will study us and adapt our ideas and so forth.

or another one elvolve, thus we cant be fully knowledgable and omnipresent and ommnisciensce and so on.

I never said we would be fully knowledgeable, omnipresent and Omniscient. I don't think the fact that it is highly improbable and maybe completely impossible that we could evolve to such a state means that we shouldn't try to learn more about the universe and better ourselves.

 

[coffeeelover]

But do you see how you have helped to prove my assertion that no amount of knowledge can define God?

No sorry, but I don't.

 

[Pard]

I am glad you would like to have a discussion. Why not deal with the science I posted in the 4004 thread or show back up in one of the flood threads? There is ample opportunity for discussion.

That isn't discussion it is argument... I have tried to discuss, you derailed, remember? That and I prefer to avoid you, your arrogance and insults grow tiresome very quickly, plus I'd hate to see you banned from the forum on my account.

 

[coffeeelover]

That isn't discussion it is argument... I have tried to discuss, you derailed, remember? That and I prefer to avoid you, your arrogance and insults grow tiresome very quickly, plus I'd hate to see you banned from the forum on my account.

I think we are having a good discussion.

Also, I don't think I derailed at all. You wanted a discussion of local vs world wide flood. I gave my reasons for not believing in a world wide flood. You just wanted to control the debate to the point where you win automatically. I just don't play games like that.

As far as insults go. You are insulting as well. So I think we play tit for tat in that area.

There is the history of the flood thread which you said you would get back to, but I have yet to see your response. I am looking forward to reading it. I promise not to get involved and let the other regular posters who have been in the thread keep it up.

As for you wouldn't want to be the reason I get banned. Why do you assume I would get banned? I think you should worry about yourself getting banned. You seem to be able to dish it out just as well as me. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree.

 

[jasoncran]

I never said we would be fully knowledgeable, omnipresent and Omniscient. I don't think the fact that it is highly improbable and maybe completely impossible that we could evolve to such a state means that we shouldn't try to learn more about the universe and better ourselves.

of course, that was the limits i mean we cant be a God and that was sparrows point , he was saying that we cant ever know what god thinks or does as we arent him, and unless he tell us via word or any others means we dont know outside what is already revaeled.

even you have said that one man or a group has all the truth, so then we can know it know?it must be attainable and it is, but you have said that no one can have the truth.

my position is this we know what god has said, and only that, he hasnt told us about alien life, why he lets men suffer outside of the curse upon all men, or other hard questions that need answers.

 

[Sparkey]

By the way, thank you for teaching me this. I will now amend my definition of numbers to the set of all numbers that includes both Real and Unreal (Irrational) numbers but excludes

, "infinity". Irrational numbers are defined as the number zero and any number that can not be expressed as a fraction of integers excluding

, "infinity".

There is no defining the infinite.

But wait, is zero a number? It's back to remedial math for me.

 

[Sparkey]

But do you see how you have helped to prove my assertion that no amount of knowledge can define God?

No sorry, but I don't.

I am a believer and am told to "hope all things" and "believe all things" -- but it's difficult for me to believe you here. Not trying to resort to flattery but you seems intelligent enough to be able to follow this basic discussion if ya wanna.

Don't make me go looking for the Greek work for "Unwilling" - I'm willing but I don't wanna. :toofunny

 

[jasoncran]

By the way, thank you for teaching me this. I will now amend my definition of numbers to the set of all numbers that includes both Real and Unreal (Irrational) numbers but excludes

, "infinity". Irrational numbers are defined as the number zero and any number that can not be expressed as a fraction of integers excluding

, "infinity".

There is no defining the infinite.

But wait, is zero a number? It's back to remedial math for me.

its called imiginary and or complex numbers and yes zero is a number. ax+bi whereas i is the root of negative one. and can be its multiples.

irational are these 22/7 aka pie but dont divide evenly and will have whole number plus fraction. sparrow, please hit the books.

i love math and can tutor if need be.

 

[Nick]

Could we get totopic please? The OP was stimulating discussions on the similarities and differences between Creationism and the Theory of Evolution. I don't believe Dora was asking for a scientific debate on Creationism VS Evolution.

Also note that personal problems with another member can be discussed in PMs, not the public forums. Further off-topic posts or posts that should be dealt with privately will be deleted.

Thankyou

 

[coffeeelover]

By the way, thank you for teaching me this. I will now amend my definition of numbers to the set of all numbers that includes both Real and Unreal (Irrational) numbers but excludes

, "infinity". Irrational numbers are defined as the number zero and any number that can not be expressed as a fraction of integers excluding

, "infinity".

There is no defining the infinite.

But wait, is zero a number? It's back to remedial math for me.

Your welcome. Oh and sorry if I came off as a jerk. The link that said 5th grade math just got on my nerves.