With God All Things Are Possible!

[Justus]

Check out that last play of the Cardinals - Packers game.  

[mymistake]

Yet

If we're assuming Biblegod, and all things means all things,what do you think, Justus? Are all things possible with God? 

 

So far, the Bible says yes, and our friend Ironhorse says no. What do you say?

If one has faith in the Word, then if all things are possible with God then one must conclude that it must be possible that all things are not possible with God, or else all things would not be possible with God.

 

Jesus said unto him, If thou can't believe, all things are possible to him that believeth. Mark 9:23

 

As written in Proverbs 14:15: The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.

 

That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: Hebrews 6:18

 

 

 

 

 

It is impossible for God to lie?  God lied to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.  God said they would die on the day they ate the forbidden fruit.  However the talking serpent told Eve the truth.  The day they ate the forbidden fruit they did not die.

 

 

"The Bible is the word of ignorant men who couldn't agree with each other" - some guy on the internet

[duderonomy]

Your turn Justus. You have two to choose from.

[Justus]

Your turn Justus. You have two to choose from.

 

As you don't believe God then why would I expect you to believe anything I say.

 

 

However the talking serpent told Eve the truth.

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Genesis 3:1

 

God did not say tell the man that he could not eat of every tree in the Garden.  So I think you are mistaken when you say the serpent didn't lie.

 

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: Gen 2:16

 

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. Genesis 1:29

 

So what tree bears fruit in which there is no tree yielding seed?  

 

Of course you don't believe the principle man is the only beast that can communicate using the spoken word, so if you don't believe that principle then I doubt you will believe what the Son of David wrote in Eccl 3:18, "I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts."

 

Besides the serpent didn't tell Eve anything since it is written, in Genesis 5:2it is written, "Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created."

 

"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. And Adam called his wife's name Eve;..." Genesis 3:19-20

 

It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

Bumped for your attention, Justus.

That is the same excuse you use every time.

 

Then again, you response satisfies the statement I made to Ironhouse, if he thought you could prove anything then he obviously has faith.

 

 

It's not an excuse.

 

Your claim about what I believe is hearsay and remains so until you follow the proper rules of evidence and quote me.

 

If you can't measure up to the proper rules of evidence, that's not my problem.

 

Cite or quote me or retract your claim about me.

[disillusioned]

 

I'm pretty sure you're the only person on these boards who thinks that.

I'm pretty sure you're the only person on these boards who thinks that.

 

Maybe you are right but I can only go by what the man says.

 

For one, in earlier conversations BAA has refuted the validity of Thomas Paine’s quote, “Every science has for its basis a system of principles as fixed and unalterable as those by which the universe is regulated and governed.” Thus no legitimate science is based upon merely a hypothesis or beliefs but rather on established and accepted scientific principles, (in Paine’s writings he goes a much better job of explaining this than I could in this brief response.)

 

Second, in his post he makes the comment “The science of the physical world (i.e., the properties of water) only ever offers the best explanation according to the available evidence.” Obviously he again refutes scientific principles since they prove what will happen or won’t happen, not what might happen. .

But then again, my statement was “Do you think BAA can prove that water can't freeze unless it is exposed to air temperature of 32 degrees or less. If you say 'yes' then I would say you definitely have faith.” And in such, BAA responded “The person claiming to know what I believe about scientific principles doesn't seem to understand that science doesn't prove anything.”

 

Personally it is clear that BAA doesn’t believe in scientific principles, but you can believe whatever you choice as well. But I would submit that:

1. It is also a known and observed fact that a water molecule (H²0) on earth exists in one of three states, solid, liquid or gas.
2.  It is also a known and observed fact that a water molecule in the liquid state changes into a solid state at 32 degrees (F).

• Thus, based upon these two facts the principle is formed which holds each and every time, without exception, that a water molecule will freeze, or rather convert from a liquid state into to a solid state at 32 degrees (F).

Thus a legitimate scientific principle will always hold true from the beginning of the physical world, just as it will be found to be true today, as it will also be true in this physical world today.

 

 

Oh, so what you meant to say is that BAA does not accept Thomas Paine’s idea of scientific principles. This is quite a different statement than your assertion that he doesn’t believe in scientific principles at all. I’ll let BAA speak for himself on this topic if he so chooses, but if you are correct in your assertion that he disputes Paine’s ideas, then I can see why this might be the case.

 

Thomas Paine meant something quite specific when he wrote about scientific principles. I think that Paine got many things right in his writings, but this is one thing which, in my opinion, he may have gotten wrong (or at least may have treated with insufficient rigor).

 

Science is a process of obtaining knowledge about the natural world. The knowledge is obtained via the scientific method, and is therefore based on evidence and experimentation. From a gradual accrual of evidence, models are built. These models contain laws, which allow us to make predictions about what we expect to see if a particular model is correct. We then continue to follow the scientific process, and test these predictions. If the predictions are borne out, then the model is strengthened. If not, the model is either modified or discarded. Over time, as a great deal of evidence is built up, certain models become generally accepted, and the laws of these models begin to be called laws “of the universe”.

 

This is all relatively straightforward. And it is true that science treats the universe as if it is governed by some set of actual laws. But science does not claim to know what these laws truly are. It only ever approximates them. We don’t have a theory of everything, and many scientists think that we never will.

Now, speaking colloquially, what I have just written may be viewed as an outline of a set of scientific principles. I have described what science generally does—the principles by which it operates. But Paine meant something quite different than this when he referred to “scientific principles”. He was referring to a certain type of immutable law underlying reality. Almost a sort of platonic form of natural law. I’m not sure that Paine is entirely correct in his analysis, or in his conclusion that such laws exist. This does not mean that I don’t believe in scientific principles in the usual sense, it just means that I’m not completely convinced by the writings of Thomas Paine. Whether BAA agrees with me or not, I will leave up to him to explain.

 

BAA’s statement regarding how science offers the best explanation according to the available evidence is accurate, however. I have never met a scientist who would disagree with it. Science does not prove anything; it builds models and makes predictions based on evidence. Some predictions are quite firmly supported, and others are less so. But in all cases, scientists remain open to having their models overthrown by unexpected results.

 

By the way, your statement regarding the freezing of water is incomplete. It is an incorrect statement of a conventional scientific law. Water can freeze at above 32F if it is under very high pressure. Practically, this doesn’t happen because the pressures required are really quite high, but it can be done. In either case, however, this is an example of a law of a particular model. It seems to work, and is the best explanation of the available evidence. But it has not been proven, and we cannot say that it has always been true, or that it will always be true. All we can say is that it seems to work, so we behave as if it is true until it stops working. Then we look for something better. This is the essence of science, and I have no doubt that BAA agrees with me on this point (but of course, he will correct me if I’m wrong).

[bornagainathiest]

Thanks for your input, D.

 

I won't comment on it until Justus has had a chance to respond.

 

All I will say is that his description of the behavior of the water molecule seems solely deterministic and 'classical'.

 

I wonder how he factors quantum uncertainty into the mix?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

Justus,

 

I see that you've paid a visit to my profile page today.

Did you notice that I've stored sixteen links there - which lead to threads in Ex-C? These are my records of what certain other members have written.  Should I be asked to substantiate something I say about them, I can do so by following these links, finding what they've written and then citing/quoting the appropriate information.  So the standard of accountability I'm holding you to is one that I uphold myself.  And that's why you were dead wrong when you wrote... "That is the same excuse you use every time."

.

.

.

Now, in this thread you've written something about me.

 

I've challenged you to substantiate this by citing or quoting me.

 

Thus far you've ducked my challenge.

.

.

.

I do not make excuses because I hold myself to a higher and better level of accountability than you.

 

It is YOU who are at fault for making a claim about me that you cannot substantiate when challenged.

 

Therefore, cite/quote me or retract your claim about me and stop making excuses for not doing either of these things!

 

[disillusioned]

Thanks for your input, D.

 

I won't comment on it until Justus has had a chance to respond.

 

All I will say is that his description of the behavior of the water molecule seems solely deterministic and 'classical'.

 

I wonder how he factors quantum uncertainty into the mix?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

 

Yes, there is also this. I'm interested to see what Justus has to say here too.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

John 14:12, allegedly said by Jesus:  "Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father."

 

So we can feed 5,000 with a few loafs and fish?  We can heal the blind and lame and cure leprosy?  We can bring our dead friends back to life?

 

Jesus allegedly said we could, if we believed in him.  

 

 

Charismatic teachers and those who follow them take this verse to validate their teaching. They see it as a proof text for the notion that present-day believers can perform miraculous signs and wonders—even more spectacular than Jesus Himself.

 

If that is what the verse means, why doesn’t Benny Hinn walk on water, show us a great miracle. Better yet, show us one greater than Jesus.

 

If this is the correct interpretation, then the Christian faith is not true. 

 

The gross error they make is by saying “works” Jesus means miracles. That is not what the text says.

Jesus is referring to their work as evangelist and spreading the Word, not his miracles.

 

And they did, they reached far more people with the message and writings than Jesus. Billy Graham has told millions the good news of Jesus. This is the meaning of John 14:2.

 

Note:  During that lives God did give the disciples temporary gifts of the Spirit. Peter raising the dead is one example, speaking in tongues another. 

 

Here, yet again, Ironhorse puts forth the idea that the bible doesn't mean what it says.  If the bible doesn't mean what it says, then it it not the inspired word of god...period.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

What did you think of the explanation? I'm not asking if you agreed with it, but do you think 

I, at least, presented the alternate view well?

Considering the fact that BAA doesn't believe in scientific principles, then I'll help you with your skeptical analysis.

 

Do you believe that if Jesus said that he could cause water to freeze solid without exposing the water to air having a temperature 32 degrees or less that he could cause it to freeze?

 

If you say 'yes' then I would say you definitely have faith.

 

Do you think BAA can prove that water can't freeze unless it is exposed to air temperature of 32 degrees or less.

 

If you say 'yes' then I would say you definitely have faith.

 

None of this requires faith; it only requires a bit of LN2, which will freeze just about anything irrespective of the ambient temperature.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Your turn Justus. You have two to choose from.

 

As you don't believe God then why would I expect you to believe anything I say.

 

 

However the talking serpent told Eve the truth.

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Genesis 3:1

 

God did not say tell the man that he could not eat of every tree in the Garden.  So I think you are mistaken when you say the serpent didn't lie.

 

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: Gen 2:16

 

 

16The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."  Gen 2

 

I think YOU are mistaken, Justus.  Context really is a bitch, innit?

[Justus]

None of this requires faith; it only requires a bit of LN2, which will freeze just about anything irrespective of the ambient temperature.

So if you add Liquid Nitrogen to water would you still have H20 or a new compound.  Plus the LN2 causes the water to boil and turn in gas, or water vapour.  

 

https://www.sharecare.com/health/household-safety/mix-nitrogen-water-dangerous-fumes

[Justus]

 

 

Your turn Justus. You have two to choose from.

 

As you don't believe God then why would I expect you to believe anything I say.

 

 

However the talking serpent told Eve the truth.

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Genesis 3:1

 

God did not say tell the man that he could not eat of every tree in the Garden.  So I think you are mistaken when you say the serpent didn't lie.

 

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: Gen 2:16

 

 

16The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."  Gen 2

 

I think YOU are mistaken, Justus.  Context really is a bitch, innit?

 

No not really, name a tree that bears fruit which does not contain a tree yielding seed?  it is written in Genesis 1:29 that God said "...and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

None of this requires faith; it only requires a bit of LN2, which will freeze just about anything irrespective of the ambient temperature.

So if you add Liquid Nitrogen to water would you still have H20 or a new compound.  Plus the LN2 causes the water to boil and turn in gas, or water vapour.  

 

https://www.sharecare.com/health/household-safety/mix-nitrogen-water-dangerous-fumes

 

You don't need to add anything to the water.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

Your turn Justus. You have two to choose from.

 

As you don't believe God then why would I expect you to believe anything I say.

 

 

However the talking serpent told Eve the truth.

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Genesis 3:1

 

God did not say tell the man that he could not eat of every tree in the Garden.  So I think you are mistaken when you say the serpent didn't lie.

 

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: Gen 2:16

 

 

16The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."  Gen 2

 

I think YOU are mistaken, Justus.  Context really is a bitch, innit?

 

No not really, name a tree that bears fruit which does not contain a tree yielding seed?  it is written in Genesis 1:29 that God said "...and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."  

 

Seedless oranges grow on trees.  So, god was warning us against GMOs?  Doesn't sound like that when you read it in context with all the death and evil and such.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

By the way, Justus, fun though it is trolling you, you have unfinished business with Disillusioned and BAA that you really need to sort out.  I suggest you handle that before you and I get into it.

[mymistake]

 

 

However the talking serpent told Eve the truth.

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Genesis 3:1

 

God did not say tell the man that he could not eat of every tree in the Garden.  So I think you are mistaken when you say the serpent didn't lie.

 

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: Gen 2:16

 

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. Genesis 1:29

 

So what tree bears fruit in which there is no tree yielding seed?  

 

Of course you don't believe the principle man is the only beast that can communicate using the spoken word, so if you don't believe that principle then I doubt you will believe what the Son of David wrote in Eccl 3:18, "I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts."

 

Besides the serpent didn't tell Eve anything since it is written, in Genesis 5:2it is written, "Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created."

 

"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. And Adam called his wife's name Eve;..." Genesis 3:19-20

 

It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

 

 

 

You are changing the subject.  You know from the context of my post that I was talking about "the forbidden fruit causing death the day you eat it".  You must be desperate because you know God lied about that topic and the serpent told the truth about that subject, "the forbidden fruit causing death the day you eat it".

 

Nobody is arguing that a mythical character who is a talking serpent cannot lie.  The point was that the book of Hebrews contradicts the book of Genesis because the Bible was written by ignorant men who couldn't agree with each other.  One Bible author says God cannot lie, another makes God lie.

[duderonomy]

 

Your turn Justus. You have two to choose from.

 

As you don't believe God then why would I expect you to believe anything I say.

 

 

 

 

 

None of us on here except Ironhorse "believe God" yet your talking to them. Was it something about my questions that made you cop-out here? 

[mymistake]

 

 

 

Your turn Justus. You have two to choose from.

 

As you don't believe God then why would I expect you to believe anything I say.

 

 

However the talking serpent told Eve the truth.

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Genesis 3:1

 

God did not say tell the man that he could not eat of every tree in the Garden.  So I think you are mistaken when you say the serpent didn't lie.

 

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: Gen 2:16

 

 

16The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."  Gen 2

 

I think YOU are mistaken, Justus.  Context really is a bitch, innit?

 

No not really, name a tree that bears fruit which does not contain a tree yielding seed?  it is written in Genesis 1:29 that God said "...and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."  

 

 

 

The part about "on the day you eat from it you will surely die" was the lie.  It must suck to be a believer.

[Justus]

Seedless oranges grow on trees.  So, god was warning us against GMOs?  Doesn't sound like that when you read it in context with all the death and evil and such.

So how did the seedless oranges evolve... LOL

 

By the way, Justus, fun though it is trolling you, you have unfinished business with Disillusioned and BAA that you really need to sort out. I suggest you handle that before you and I get into it.

 

You know it kinda made me feel bad to see you run off all upset last time so I will try to dumb down a for you.

 

You don't need to add anything to the water.

Well, let's assume your right.  So  let BAA tell me about H²O boils at 212 degrees "everywhere at everywhen" since his profile states that his universal physics principle – the laws of physics are the same everywhere and everywhen.   Why does water boil at lower temperatures at higher places if the universal physics principle says that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe, all of the time?

;  

[sdelsolray]

...

Well, let's assume your right.  So  let BAA tell me about H²O boils at 212 degrees "everywhere at everywhen" since his profile states that his universal physics principle – the laws of physics are the same everywhere and everywhen.   Why does water boil at lower temperatures at higher places if the universal physics principle says that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe, all of the time?

...

 

 

 

Wow...just wow.  The scientific ignorance just oozes from this one.

[bornagainathiest]

 

So  let BAA tell me about H²O boils at 212 degrees "everywhere at everywhen" since his profile states that his universal physics principle – the laws of physics are the same everywhere and everywhen.   

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I still cannot answer any of your questions until you have substantiated the earlier claim you made about me, Justus.

 

Please do that or retract it.

[Justus]

 

 

 

 

Your turn Justus. You have two to choose from.

 

As you don't believe God then why would I expect you to believe anything I say.

 

 

However the talking serpent told Eve the truth.

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Genesis 3:1

 

God did not say tell the man that he could not eat of every tree in the Garden.  So I think you are mistaken when you say the serpent didn't lie.

 

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: Gen 2:16

 

 

16The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."  Gen 2

 

I think YOU are mistaken, Justus.  Context really is a bitch, innit?

 

No not really, name a tree that bears fruit which does not contain a tree yielding seed?  it is written in Genesis 1:29 that God said "...and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."  

 

 

 

The part about "on the day you eat from it you will surely die" was the lie.  It must suck to be a believer.

 

 

 So if science doesn't prove anything then I guess you got me on that one. 

[Vigile]

Science requires no defense. Justin, do donkeys and snakes talk, did the world stand still, do people rise from the dead, do the blind regain their sight, can a man drink poison and not die?

 

You're the one with the extraordinary claims here, not we. Good trick trying to turn the tables though.