If Jesus Is God

[midniterider]

But pawn ... would I be closed minded if I said that "God's Chosen People" and "The Master Race" have a very similar ring?

 

Both have a pretty racist tone to me!

 

Adolf Christ.

[midniterider]

So it takes an all powerful god to get the performance of a sugar pill?  These people were not miraculously healed.  They just showed overall improvements in natural recovery.

 

Well fortunately I do pray to Captain Kirk so I do will benefit from the same improvements in my life.

 

Uhura's better.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Romans 8:19-23

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

 

¹⁹ For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. ²⁰ For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope ²¹ that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. ²² For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. ²³ And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.

 

This is what I believe.  I cannot and will not believe anything else that contradicts this. 

 

But you do, Fungi-rye.

 

When you agreed to this.

 

IF IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR FALSE KNOWLEDGE TO GIVE TRUE ANSWERS; THEN THIS FALSE KNOWLEDGE MUST ALWAYS GIVE FALSE ANSWERS.

 

 I asked you a free and open question and you freely and openly (without coercion or trickery) signed up to it, by writing, "I greatly concur with this statement."

 

The above statement totally destroys the Young Earth Creationist p.o.v., which you claim to hold.

 

How?  Like this.  (Please pay attention - I won't be repeating myself.)

 

Scientists made a 100% accurate prediction about the age of the universe, proving that they had true knowledge about it..

If their knowledge had been false, then the radiation they measured wouldn't have matched up with their prediction.

 

But it did match up - perfectly!

 

Their knowledge of the universe must have been true - because false knowledge cannot give true answers.

Therefore, the true age of the universe, as perfectly predicted by these scientists... is 13.82 billion years.

 

But YEC's like yourself claim the universe is only thousands of years old.

However, this must be a false claim, based upon false knowledge because the true age of the universe has been predicted and confirmed by scientists.

Their true knowledge gave them the true answer.

 

You signed up to this, when you concurred with the above statement.

Therefore, since you concur that only true knowledge can give true answers, you are (even if you deny it) toeing the scientific line - as I've just demonstrated.

 

This is the spike of logic you willingly impaled yourself on.

The only way out of this this bind is for you to retract your agreement.

 

(Snip!)

 

So if I am skeptical of science, you bet I am.  Some, not all, science is destroying this world and we are standing idly by picking our noses without so much as a care.  So yeah, really skeptical.

 

 

Your skepticism contradicts your agreement, FGR.

 

Either you are skeptical of science AND you retract your agreement, or you agree with science AND hold to your agreement.

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

Think about it.

[bornagainathiest]

FGR,

 

It occurs to me that you might be struggling to understand how you got yourself into this fix (the one I described in the previous post), so I'm going to be nice and explain it to you, using scripture to illustrate the lesson.

 

Please look at Acts 5 : 1 - 11, the account of Ananias and Sapphira.

What is relevant to you personally, is the free choice Peter gave to Sapphira in verse 8.

 

⁸ Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

 

There was no trickery or coercion on Peter's part, was there?

Sapphira fully understood his question, didn't she?

So her decision to lie was her fault and her fault alone.  No blame or responsibility can be laid at anyone else's door, right?

When two people converse like this; freely and openly, without trickery or coercion, each is entirely responsible what they say, yes?

If they tell the truth, they are responsible for that.  If they tell a lie, they are responsible for that too.

 

But there's one other factor at work in this story FGR, one that applies to you.

 

UNDERSTANDING  THE  CONSEQUENCES  OF  AGREEING  TO  SOMETHING.

 

This is where you tripped yourself up.

 

Sapphira understood Peter's question well enough, but she failed to understand the consequences of lying to the holy spirit and paid the due penalty - death.

 

In your case, you failed to properly understand the full implications of the statement I presented to you.  Most likely you assumed that true knowledge could only come from God and the Bible and so you concurred 'greatly' with the statement, without thinking overmuch about it.

 

Please note that just as in Peter and Sapphira's case, there was no trickery or coercion involved.  Both of us freely entered into dialog with each other and you freely answered a question I put to you.  The responsibility for understanding that question was yours and yours alone.

 

Before you concurred, you had the opportunity to pause and think about it.

Before you concurred, you had the opportunity to ask me to explain the statement - something that I would have been happy to do, btw.

Before you concurred, you had the opportunity to ask yourself the following questions.

 

"Why would a scientifically-minded Atheist Ex-christian write such a statement?"

"Why would he write it and then ask me, a Christian, if I agreed with it?"

"What does 'True Knowledge' really mean to him... an Atheist?"

"Surely it can't mean scripture and Godly knowledge - after all, he's an Atheist?"

 

Before you concurred FGR, you also had the opportunity to ask me any or all of those questions and I would have been quite happy to explain them to you.

 

But you didn't.

You had the time and the opportunities to use your reasoning mind, your rationality and your intelligence and you failed to do so.  None of this is my fault.  I didn't trap, trick or coerce you into doing anything you didn't want to.  If you didn't stop to think about the consequences of what you were signing up to, that's not my fault either.

 

You freely answered my question, just as Sapphira answered Peter's, and like her and you now have to take the consequences.  In her case it was death.  In your case, you've agreed that scientists have true knowledge about the universe and have correctly predicted that it is 13.82 billion years old.

 

That is why, since the moment you concurred with this, you've been contradicting yourself.

You can't simultaneously agree with a scientifically-confirmed, ancient universe and a scripture-based young one.  Your Biblical qoutes stand in direct contradiction to your agreement with the true knowledge of science.  So does any claim on your part to be skeptical of science.  You can't be skeptical of the very thing you've agreed to, can you?

.

.

.

So please, please, please T-H-I-N-K...!

 

NOT thinking, NOT questioning and NOT understanding has put you in this mess.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[WarriorPoet]

 

 

 

Romans 8:19-23

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

 

¹⁹ For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. ²⁰ For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope ²¹ that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. ²² For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. ²³ And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.

 

This is what I believe.  I cannot and will not believe anything else that contradicts this. 

 

But you do, Fungi-rye.

 

When you agreed to this.

 

IF IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR FALSE KNOWLEDGE TO GIVE TRUE ANSWERS; THEN THIS FALSE KNOWLEDGE MUST ALWAYS GIVE FALSE ANSWERS.

 

 I asked you a free and open question and you freely and openly (without coercion or trickery) signed up to it, by writing, "I greatly concur with this statement."

 

The above statement totally destroys the Young Earth Creationist p.o.v., which you claim to hold.

 

How?  Like this.  (Please pay attention - I won't be repeating myself.)

 

Scientists made a 100% accurate prediction about the age of the universe, proving that they had true knowledge about it..

If their knowledge had been false, then the radiation they measured wouldn't have matched up with their prediction.

 

But it did match up - perfectly!

 

Their knowledge of the universe must have been true - because false knowledge cannot give true answers.

Therefore, the true age of the universe, as perfectly predicted by these scientists... is 13.82 billion years.

 

But YEC's like yourself claim the universe is only thousands of years old.

However, this must be a false claim, based upon false knowledge because the true age of the universe has been predicted and confirmed by scientists.

Their true knowledge gave them the true answer.

 

You signed up to this, when you concurred with the above statement.

Therefore, since you concur that only true knowledge can give true answers, you are (even if you deny it) toeing the scientific line - as I've just demonstrated.

 

This is the spike of logic you willingly impaled yourself on.

The only way out of this this bind is for you to retract your agreement.

 

(Snip!)

 

So if I am skeptical of science, you bet I am.  Some, not all, science is destroying this world and we are standing idly by picking our noses without so much as a care.  So yeah, really skeptical.

 

 

Your skepticism contradicts your agreement, FGR.

 

Either you are skeptical of science AND you retract your agreement, or you agree with science AND hold to your agreement.

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

Think about it.

 

You see where you have erred is in the fact of how many times over the last 100 years have scientists changed the date of the universe?  The problem is, this number will shift and move ahead or backwards when there are new "discoveries" in technology or theories.  Will you stake your life on the Universe being 13 and some billion years old?  Remember there was also that +- differential.  That number can and will change as well.  This is a floating number, and will always be a floating number.  If you really want to impress me, nail down the exact date with this perfect science...which you cannot.  So yes,  false knowledge will always provide false answers.  The speed of light is beginning to be seen as changing.  What does that hold or mean for cosmologoy?

 

http://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html

 

Edit:  You said the scientists made a 100% accurate prediction, yet there was that +- thing going on.  Doesn't seem like it was to 100%.  My God is greater than that though.  He is correct 100% of the time.

 

News flash everybody.  Biologists have reclassified bats.  They are now birds.

[Ravenstar]

 

 

 

 

Romans 8:19-23

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

 

¹⁹ For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. ²⁰ For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope ²¹ that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. ²² For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. ²³ And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.

 

This is what I believe.  I cannot and will not believe anything else that contradicts this. 

 

But you do, Fungi-rye.

 

When you agreed to this.

 

IF IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR FALSE KNOWLEDGE TO GIVE TRUE ANSWERS; THEN THIS FALSE KNOWLEDGE MUST ALWAYS GIVE FALSE ANSWERS.

 

 I asked you a free and open question and you freely and openly (without coercion or trickery) signed up to it, by writing, "I greatly concur with this statement."

 

The above statement totally destroys the Young Earth Creationist p.o.v., which you claim to hold.

 

How?  Like this.  (Please pay attention - I won't be repeating myself.)

 

Scientists made a 100% accurate prediction about the age of the universe, proving that they had true knowledge about it..

If their knowledge had been false, then the radiation they measured wouldn't have matched up with their prediction.

 

But it did match up - perfectly!

 

Their knowledge of the universe must have been true - because false knowledge cannot give true answers.

Therefore, the true age of the universe, as perfectly predicted by these scientists... is 13.82 billion years.

 

But YEC's like yourself claim the universe is only thousands of years old.

However, this must be a false claim, based upon false knowledge because the true age of the universe has been predicted and confirmed by scientists.

Their true knowledge gave them the true answer.

 

You signed up to this, when you concurred with the above statement.

Therefore, since you concur that only true knowledge can give true answers, you are (even if you deny it) toeing the scientific line - as I've just demonstrated.

 

This is the spike of logic you willingly impaled yourself on.

The only way out of this this bind is for you to retract your agreement.

 

(Snip!)

 

So if I am skeptical of science, you bet I am.  Some, not all, science is destroying this world and we are standing idly by picking our noses without so much as a care.  So yeah, really skeptical.

 

 

Your skepticism contradicts your agreement, FGR.

 

Either you are skeptical of science AND you retract your agreement, or you agree with science AND hold to your agreement.

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

Think about it.

 

You see where you have erred is in the fact of how many times over the last 100 years have scientists changed the date of the universe?  The problem is, this number will shift and move ahead or backwards when there are new "discoveries" in technology or theories.  Will you stake your life on the Universe being 13 and some billion years old?  Remember there was also that +- differential.  That number can and will change as well.  This is a floating number, and will always be a floating number.  If you really want to impress me, nail down the exact date with this perfect science...which you cannot.  So yes,  false knowledge will always provide false answers.  The speed of light is beginning to be seen as changing.  What does that hold or mean for cosmologoy?

 

http://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html

 

Edit:  You said the scientists made a 100% accurate prediction, yet there was that +- thing going on.  Doesn't seem like it was to 100%.  My God is greater than that though.  He is correct 100% of the time.

 

News flash everybody.  Biologists have reclassified bats.  They are now birds.

 

and days and nights happened before the sun was created,

 

fish were created before insects,

 

somehow all marine animals survived the heat, pressure and salinity issues with the flood… 

 

magic potions cure leprosy,

 

The earth is a flat disk, and the sky is held up by pillars,

 

OH!!!! there is a crystal bowl in the sky and the stars are embedded in it.. there are 'windows' too I hear, for the rain.

 

Language comes from building a tower...

 

Yup  100% right

 

"No, the error is in perspective and outlook.  Your false answers and false knowledge is radically different from my perspective of false answers and false knowledge.  My truth is radically different from your truth.  I agreed to none of the conclusions you said about the age of the universe, so don't misrepresent what I said.  PLease and thank you "

 

This is called 'changing the goal posts" . It's inherently dishonest.. or you just have no idea how to say what you mean. I call it "the backstroke". There is no 'your truth' and our truth..there's just truth. Reality IS… and it doesn't care what you or I believe about it.

[RogueScholar]

The only evidence you have presented is a from a book that is so completely flawed and inaccurate, that nobody with any intellectual honesty can take it seriously. How can the supposed creater of this book be correct 100% of the time when much of the bible has been completely invalidated? Unfortunately, you have shown us that you do not understand enough about the world to skeptically and rationally examine ideas in the first place.

 

The beauty of focusing world views through the lense of methods like science is that these methods are based upon the ability to change when new data is presented or when a theory fails to make an accurate prediction. It is terrifying for a theistic person to even consider, but somethimes it really is okay to say "I was wrong and I have changed my mind, " and "I don't know."

 

Unfortunately, you do not yet have the ability to think in this way and now you are simply resorting to "I will believe this no matter what evidence is presented."

[Ouroboros]

Well you won't either, and like I admitted to, not knowing enough about science.

I've studied evolution, in college. Not for a long time, only a year of study.

 

What I do know though is the world is not progressing upward like what evolution believes, but we are decaying.

That's not true. It' snot decaying. There's no decay as such in evolution. There are plenty of examples of animals and plants which have evolved through mutations to something better, in our time. Changes in species have been documented the last 150 years. We haven't seen a speciation event yet, but there's a huge amount of beneficial mutations. Lizards where the throat and stomach has changed to improve a special food type, animals and plants becoming more resistant to radioactivity, and more.

 

Somebody mentioned something about hot spots or something, but it is all greek to me.

If it's all greek to you, then perhaps you don't understand enough to have such a strong outspoken opinion. If you think evolution is wrong, that's fine. Going to a place with people and tell them evolution is wrong because you believe so and also because you don't know anything... then you only cause irritation.

[mymistake]

You see where you have erred is in the fact of how many times over the last 100 years have scientists changed the date of the universe?  The problem is, this number will shift and move ahead or backwards when there are new "discoveries" in technology or theories. 

 

Wrong.  I could explain why but you will be offended and ignore it.  Self correction is the main strength of science, not a weakness.  When new data becomes available scientists will admit the old explanation was wrong and adjust as much at the new data allows.  We never see that from religion.  At best when dogma becomes untenable they will change it and pretend the Bible always said the new idea.

 

 

 

 Will you stake your life on the Universe being 13 and some billion years old?  Remember there was also that +- differential.  That number can and will change as well.  This is a floating number, and will always be a floating number.  If you really want to impress me, nail down the exact date with this perfect science...which you cannot.  So yes,  false knowledge will always provide false answers.  The speed of light is beginning to be seen as changing.  What does that hold or mean for cosmologoy?

 

http://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html

 

 

It means science learns more every day.  You see science is not authority driven.  No scientist claims to be in communication with an all knowing being.  So scientists are allowed to not know everything, get some things wrong and improve their understanding.  Do you question the mistakes of those who do claim they communicate with an all knowing being?  Of course you don't or else you would reject their claims for lack of evidence.

 

 

Edit:  You said the scientists made a 100% accurate prediction, yet there was that +- thing going on.  Doesn't seem like it was to 100%.  My God is greater than that though.  He is correct 100% of the time

 

The +- indicates the degree of uncertainty.  It turns out scientists can measure the uncertainty very accurately.  Another thing religion cannot do.  You have nothing to show for God being right ever.  Zero.  You can't even show that God exists.

 

 

 

No, the error is in perspective and outlook.  Your false answers and false knowledge is radically different from my perspective of false answers and false knowledge.  My truth is radically different from your truth.  I agreed to none of the conclusions you said about the age of the universe, so don't misrepresent what I said.  PLease and thank you 

 

You don't have a truth.  We don't own a truth either.  There is only one truth and if you reject it for your fantasy then you do not love truth.  If you reject the evidence based conclusions about the age of the universe then you are operating on fantasy.

 

Your willful ignorance is not proof of God.

[sdelsolray]

You see where you have erred is in the fact of how many times over the last 100 years have scientists changed the date of the universe?  The problem is, this number will shift and move ahead or backwards when there are new "discoveries" in technology or theories.  Will you stake your life on the Universe being 13 and some billion years old?  Remember there was also that +- differential.  That number can and will change as well.  This is a floating number, and will always be a floating number.  If you really want to impress me, nail down the exact date with this perfect science...which you cannot.  So yes,  false knowledge will always provide false answers.  The speed of light is beginning to be seen as changing.  What does that hold or mean for cosmologoy?

 

http://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html

 

Edit:  You said the scientists made a 100% accurate prediction, yet there was that +- thing going on.  Doesn't seem like it was to 100%.  My God is greater than that though.  He is correct 100% of the time.

 

Once again, you demonstrate a deep ignorance of the purpose and scope of science.

 

Your "God" is a mere belief within your brain, as is your assertion that your "God" is correct 100% of the time.

 

Your cognitive dissonance must be strong…very strong.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

Romans 8:19-23

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

 

¹⁹ For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. ²⁰ For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope ²¹ that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. ²² For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. ²³ And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.

 

This is what I believe.  I cannot and will not believe anything else that contradicts this. 

 

But you do, Fungi-rye.

 

When you agreed to this.

 

IF IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR FALSE KNOWLEDGE TO GIVE TRUE ANSWERS; THEN THIS FALSE KNOWLEDGE MUST ALWAYS GIVE FALSE ANSWERS.

 

 I asked you a free and open question and you freely and openly (without coercion or trickery) signed up to it, by writing, "I greatly concur with this statement."

 

The above statement totally destroys the Young Earth Creationist p.o.v., which you claim to hold.

 

How?  Like this.  (Please pay attention - I won't be repeating myself.)

 

Scientists made a 100% accurate prediction about the age of the universe, proving that they had true knowledge about it..

If their knowledge had been false, then the radiation they measured wouldn't have matched up with their prediction.

 

But it did match up - perfectly!

 

Their knowledge of the universe must have been true - because false knowledge cannot give true answers.

Therefore, the true age of the universe, as perfectly predicted by these scientists... is 13.82 billion years.

 

But YEC's like yourself claim the universe is only thousands of years old.

However, this must be a false claim, based upon false knowledge because the true age of the universe has been predicted and confirmed by scientists.

Their true knowledge gave them the true answer.

 

You signed up to this, when you concurred with the above statement.

Therefore, since you concur that only true knowledge can give true answers, you are (even if you deny it) toeing the scientific line - as I've just demonstrated.

 

This is the spike of logic you willingly impaled yourself on.

The only way out of this this bind is for you to retract your agreement.

 

(Snip!)

 

So if I am skeptical of science, you bet I am.  Some, not all, science is destroying this world and we are standing idly by picking our noses without so much as a care.  So yeah, really skeptical.

 

 

Your skepticism contradicts your agreement, FGR.

 

Either you are skeptical of science AND you retract your agreement, or you agree with science AND hold to your agreement.

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

Think about it.

 

You see where you have erred is in the fact of how many times over the last 100 years have scientists changed the date of the universe?  The problem is, this number will shift and move ahead or backwards when there are new "discoveries" in technology or theories.  Will you stake your life on the Universe being 13 and some billion years old?  Remember there was also that +- differential.  That number can and will change as well.  This is a floating number, and will always be a floating number.  If you really want to impress me, nail down the exact date with this perfect science...which you cannot.  So yes,  false knowledge will always provide false answers.  The speed of light is beginning to be seen as changing.  What does that hold or mean for cosmologoy?

 

http://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html

 

Edit:  You said the scientists made a 100% accurate prediction, yet there was that +- thing going on.  Doesn't seem like it was to 100%.  My God is greater than that though.  He is correct 100% of the time.

 

That is precisely the point of science.  Whenever new discoveries are made, science adapts to incorporate them.  Science is willing to change its view in light of new evidence.  That is what separates science from religion, which is unwilling to change no matter what.  It is also what separates fact from fiction.  Science will allow for entire theories to be thrown out if they are proven to be inaccurate.  Are you willing to throw out your bible now that we have demonstrated to you that it is wrong?  No, because we haven't really proven it to you, have we?

 

I trust science because science is honest enough to say, "I don't know".  But rather than leave me in the lurch like your religion does; science also says, "Let's find out".  

 

Finally, you asked if BAA would be willing to stake his life on the current scientific dating of the universe.  Let me ask you these questions:  Have you ever taken medicine?  Have you ever had a doctor perform a diagnostic test?  Have you ever had a surgical procedure done?  Perhaps you haven't yet trusted your life to science; but I guarantee you that someday you will.  And when that day comes, you can pray to your god all you want; but your life will be in the hands of a medically trained professional, and the scientific knowledge that person has will be the difference between life and death for you.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

So it takes an all powerful god to get the performance of a sugar pill?  These people were not miraculously healed.  They just shoed overall improvements in natural recovery.

 

Well fortunately I do pray to Captain Kirk so I do will benefit from the same improvements in my life.

So science is now being "poo pooed?" 

 

 

No.  Why do you ask?  

 

Was that not two "scientific studies" showing improvements with those who received prayer?

 

Firstly, two studies hardly produce enough reliable data to be embraced by the scientific community.  Secondly, you may want to do a little more research on studies that "prove" the effectiveness of prayer.  Every one I've ever read either didn't follow the scientific method, or were proved to have fabricated data.

 

Edit to add: I see Rogue has already addressed this with you.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

This is what I believe.  I cannot and will not believe anything else that contradicts this.  

Then go away; there is nothing more we can offer you.  

[midniterider]

 

 

 

Romans 8:19-23

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

 

¹⁹ For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. ²⁰ For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope ²¹ that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. ²² For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. ²³ And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.

 

This is what I believe.  I cannot and will not believe anything else that contradicts this. 

 

But you do, Fungi-rye.

 

When you agreed to this.

 

IF IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR FALSE KNOWLEDGE TO GIVE TRUE ANSWERS; THEN THIS FALSE KNOWLEDGE MUST ALWAYS GIVE FALSE ANSWERS.

 

 I asked you a free and open question and you freely and openly (without coercion or trickery) signed up to it, by writing, "I greatly concur with this statement."

 

The above statement totally destroys the Young Earth Creationist p.o.v., which you claim to hold.

 

How?  Like this.  (Please pay attention - I won't be repeating myself.)

 

Scientists made a 100% accurate prediction about the age of the universe, proving that they had true knowledge about it..

If their knowledge had been false, then the radiation they measured wouldn't have matched up with their prediction.

 

But it did match up - perfectly!

 

Their knowledge of the universe must have been true - because false knowledge cannot give true answers.

Therefore, the true age of the universe, as perfectly predicted by these scientists... is 13.82 billion years.

 

But YEC's like yourself claim the universe is only thousands of years old.

However, this must be a false claim, based upon false knowledge because the true age of the universe has been predicted and confirmed by scientists.

Their true knowledge gave them the true answer.

 

You signed up to this, when you concurred with the above statement.

Therefore, since you concur that only true knowledge can give true answers, you are (even if you deny it) toeing the scientific line - as I've just demonstrated.

 

This is the spike of logic you willingly impaled yourself on.

The only way out of this this bind is for you to retract your agreement.

 

(Snip!)

 

So if I am skeptical of science, you bet I am.  Some, not all, science is destroying this world and we are standing idly by picking our noses without so much as a care.  So yeah, really skeptical.

 

 

Your skepticism contradicts your agreement, FGR.

 

Either you are skeptical of science AND you retract your agreement, or you agree with science AND hold to your agreement.

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

Think about it.

 

You see where you have erred is in the fact of how many times over the last 100 years have scientists changed the date of the universe?  The problem is, this number will shift and move ahead or backwards when there are new "discoveries" in technology or theories.  Will you stake your life on the Universe being 13 and some billion years old?  Remember there was also that +- differential.  That number can and will change as well.  This is a floating number, and will always be a floating number.  If you really want to impress me, nail down the exact date with this perfect science...which you cannot.  So yes,  false knowledge will always provide false answers.  The speed of light is beginning to be seen as changing.  What does that hold or mean for cosmologoy?

 

http://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html

 

Edit:  You said the scientists made a 100% accurate prediction, yet there was that +- thing going on.  Doesn't seem like it was to 100%.  My God is greater than that though.  He is correct 100% of the time.

 

 

Correct about what?

 

What has God said lately? Are you talking of the God that is always silent and always absent? The God of your own imagination whose thoughts are indistinguishable from your own thoughts? That God? The one that a believer will say, "God says blah blah" instead of God speaking with his own voice?

 

A 'real' God could at least appear on tv to be interviewed by Diane Sawyer or Anderson Cooper which would clear up a lot of questions. A State of the Universe address, so to speak. The God of your imagination never says or does anything. Always silent, always absent. The non-existent God of Christianity.

[bornagainathiest]

 

You see where you have erred is in the fact of how many times over the last 100 years have scientists changed the date of the universe? 

 

Exactly, FGR.

As the Prof has just pointed out, science improves itself by testing, checking, re-checking and cross-checking, time and time again.  The changes you are talking about aren't a sign of science's flaws or weaknesses - they are a sign of it's strength.  We are closing in on the truth and the margins of error are decreasing, not increasing.

 

The proof of that isn't up for debate.

Nor is it a matter of personal opinion, subjective interpretation or even faith.  As I've already shown you in this thread, these things are... historical facts.  You can verify them for yourself. 

 

Read about them on Wikipedia. 

Visit a NASA astronomy website or an educational site hosted by a reputable university.  Check out the personal pages of various comsologists, if you like.  Or walk into your local library and ask for some help on the subject.  Buy some books about modern cosmology online, if you want.  Visit your local astronomy club and talk to them about it.  Go back to school and get educated about cosmology.  

 

You live in an advanced, democratic and open Western society where knowledge is freely availible.

Billions of other people around the world don't have what you're throwing away and running away from.  They can't read or write or they can't get access to learning or they're denied an education by their governments.  You don't have anything holding you back FGR ... except yourself.  You have the ability and opportunity to easily verify everything I've wriiten.  Please do so.

 

The problem is, this number will shift and move ahead or backwards when there are new "discoveries" in technology or theories. 

 

False.

The universe's age will not become less accurately defined.  It will only become more accurately defined.

 

Will you stake your life on the Universe being 13 and some billion years old? 

 

I don't have to do such a thing.

I'm already living the only life I'm ever going to have and it's continuation is not dependent on the age of the universe.

 

Remember there was also that +- differential. 

 

Wrong again.

Remember the radiation curve I showed you?  There is no + or - differential in a curve that exactly matches the prediction.  The prediction and the observation matched exactly.  When there's a perfect match between prediction and observation, there's no room for further improvement. 

Can't you see that simple fact? A perfect measurement cannot be improved upon.  A perfect validation of theory cannot be improved upon.  C'mon man... don't just spout dogma... T-H-I-N-K !

 

That number can and will change as well. 

 

As regards the measurement of that radiation curve, no it won't.

 

This is a floating number, and will always be a floating number. 

 

No.  Wrong again.

A perfect match has no floating variables at all.  What you're saying is about as sensible as 'imperfect perfection' or 'noisy silence'.

 

If you really want to impress me, nail down the exact date with this perfect science...which you cannot. 

 

Right down to the time of day of God's Creation, just as Bishop Ussher did?

"I deduce that the time from the Creation until midnight, January 1, 1 AD was 4003 years, seventy days and six hours."  The exact moment of Creation is therefore 6 pm.  As Clarence Darrow asked William Jennings Bryan..."Would that be Eastern Standard Time?"

 

 

Look, I'm not here to impress you, FGR.  

The perfect match up between theory and observation should impress any open-minded person and cause them to think seriously about it's consequences - without my help.  But giving thought to the consequences of things doesn't seem to be your strong point.  Blindly accepting the words in an ancient book as truth is more your thing.  It's now quite clear to me that your mind was made up before you even arrived in this forum and so only you can un-make it. 

 

I didn't arrive in a YEC forum and try to persuade the people there, remember?

It was YOU who came here, to an Ex-Christian forum, with your own agenda.  I'm simply pointing out the flaws, errors, mistakes and misunderstandings in what you've written, that's all.  If you can't bear to see your cherished beliefs demolished by evidence and logic, then just up sticks and leave, ok?

 

So yes,  false knowledge will always provide false answers. 

 

And true knowledge enables predictions that give true answers... which you are still on record as concurring with, btw.

 

The speed of light is beginning to be seen as changing.  What does that hold or mean for cosmologoy?

http://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo%C3%A3o_Magueijo

This scientist has been theorizing about variations in the speed of light since 1998 - almost fifteen years ago.  This isn't recent news.

 

FGR, it's good that scientists are always testing and  checking things.

That's how they arrive at a clearer understanding of how reality works.  You're mistaken in thinking that disagreement automatically equals error.  Not so!   

 

So what does a variation in the speed of light mean for cosmology?   It means that certain things have to be re-formulated to take that into account, while other things stay as they are.  It also means that this puts us one step further on our path of discovery.  Therefore, we should welcome new discoveries - not fear them.

 

Edit:  You said the scientists made a 100% accurate prediction, yet there was that +- thing going on. 

 

No. Wrong. 

There is no floating variable of any kind.  Take off your blinkers and go back and read it again.

 

Doesn't seem like it was to 100%. 

 

Yes.  It was 100%.

 

My God is greater than that though.  He is correct 100% of the time.

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[♦ ficino ♦]

Funguyrye, I thought of you yesterday.  I took Mervin to get an endoscopy.  Turns out he is diagnosed with ulcers in his esophagus and duodenum.  I asked the gastroenterologist, were the ulcers caused by a combination of acidity and bacteria?  He sort of laughed and said that the cause is very complex.  I said, well, maybe I don't need to know.  he went on to say that really, no one knows a precise answer, but that the meds will help the body heal the ulcers by reducing acidity.

 

So... does this mean that medical science is "funny," or the like?  Well it help to say, "So, medical researchers don't know.  Therefore I'll conclude that GOD was the cause of Mervin's ulcers.  God is right 100% of the time."
 

Would such an answer shed any light on the mechanism of ulcer causation and its treatment?  Would it be a scientific answer?  Should I, perhaps, not give him the meds and instead try to get a prayer and laying on of hands ceremony started?

 

The answers you've given to questions posed above don't amount to scientific answers at all.  I'll trust the gastro guy (one of the aides said "he's the best") rather than ignore his prescription and look to religion for results.

[bornagainathiest]

 

FGR,

 

It occurs to me that you might be struggling to understand how you got yourself into this fix (the one I described in the previous post), so I'm going to be nice and explain it to you, using scripture to illustrate the lesson.

 

Please look at Acts 5 : 1 - 11, the account of Ananias and Sapphira.

What is relevant to you personally, is the free choice Peter gave to Sapphira in verse 8.

 

⁸ Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

 

There was no trickery or coercion on Peter's part, was there?

Sapphira fully understood his question, didn't she?

So her decision to lie was her fault and her fault alone.  No blame or responsibility can be laid at anyone else's door, right?

When two people converse like this; freely and openly, without trickery or coercion, each is entirely responsible what they say, yes?

If they tell the truth, they are responsible for that.  If they tell a lie, they are responsible for that too.

 

But there's one other factor at work in this story FGR, one that applies to you.

 

UNDERSTANDING  THE  CONSEQUENCES  OF  AGREEING  TO  SOMETHING.

 

This is where you tripped yourself up.

 

Sapphira understood Peter's question well enough, but she failed to understand the consequences of lying to the holy spirit and paid the due penalty - death.

 

In your case, you failed to properly understand the full implications of the statement I presented to you.  Most likely you assumed that true knowledge could only come from God and the Bible and so you concurred 'greatly' with the statement, without thinking overmuch about it.

 

Please note that just as in Peter and Sapphira's case, there was no trickery or coercion involved.  Both of us freely entered into dialog with each other and you freely answered a question I put to you.  The responsibility for understanding that question was yours and yours alone.

 

Before you concurred, you had the opportunity to pause and think about it.

Before you concurred, you had the opportunity to ask me to explain the statement - something that I would have been happy to do, btw.

Before you concurred, you had the opportunity to ask yourself the following questions.

 

"Why would a scientifically-minded Atheist Ex-christian write such a statement?"

"Why would he write it and then ask me, a Christian, if I agreed with it?"

"What does 'True Knowledge' really mean to him... an Atheist?"

"Surely it can't mean scripture and Godly knowledge - after all, he's an Atheist?"

 

Before you concurred FGR, you also had the opportunity to ask me any or all of those questions and I would have been quite happy to explain them to you.

 

But you didn't.

You had the time and the opportunities to use your reasoning mind, your rationality and your intelligence and you failed to do so.  None of this is my fault.  I didn't trap, trick or coerce you into doing anything you didn't want to.  If you didn't stop to think about the consequences of what you were signing up to, that's not my fault either.

 

You freely answered my question, just as Sapphira answered Peter's, and like her and you now have to take the consequences.  In her case it was death.  In your case, you've agreed that scientists have true knowledge about the universe and have correctly predicted that it is 13.82 billion years old.

 

That is why, since the moment you concurred with this, you've been contradicting yourself.

You can't simultaneously agree with a scientifically-confirmed, ancient universe and a scripture-based young one.  Your Biblical qoutes stand in direct contradiction to your agreement with the true knowledge of science.  So does any claim on your part to be skeptical of science.  You can't be skeptical of the very thing you've agreed to, can you?

.

.

.

So please, please, please T-H-I-N-K...!

 

NOT thinking, NOT questioning and NOT understanding has put you in this mess.

No, the error is in perspective and outlook. 

 

Yes, errors were made by you... but not because of any differences in perspective or outlook. 

You are still trying to save face by redefining certain words to mean ONLY what you want.  That is not an error in perspective and outlook on anyone's part.  That's your Get-Out-Of-Jail-For-Free card, which you're now playing to cover to your ass.

 

You've decided to redefine the words 'truth' and 'knowledge'.

This is no more than a cheap shot on your part, to cover up the work you failed to do before you agreed with the statement I put to you.  You could have asked me to explain what the words, 'true' and 'knowledge' meant in the context I was using them - but you failed to do so.  As I made clear before, this is not my fault.

 

Your false answers and false knowledge is radically different from my perspective of false answers and false knowledge.  My truth is radically different from your truth.  I agreed to none of the conclusions you said about the age of the universe, so don't misrepresent what I said.  PLease and thank you 

 

Yes, you did agree.

You simply didn't realize it at the time.  You just didn't understand what the full consequences of wriritng,  "I greatly concur with this statement"  were.  I note that you've been trying every maneuver you can think of (selective cutting-and-pasting, dodging the question, Daniel in the Lion's Den, disagreements between scientists and the floating variable that doesn't apply) to avoid the consequences you didn't think about.

 

 

FGR,

 

I'm going to give you one last chance to do the mature and responsible thing and own up to the mistakes you made.

 

It is human to err.

We all make mistakes.  Every one of us.  Mistakes are opportunities to grow and learn.  Please seize this opportunity.  I'll respect you far more if you do the right thing here than if you keep up the bluff and bluster.

 

Over to you.

 

BAA

[mymistake]

 

Someone has pointed out theories and outcomes will change over time due to new discoveries and technology and what not.   I am interested in the one who changes not and is true to his word. 

 

Then why do you follow a religion that isn't true to it's word?

 

When science offers an explanation that isn't a promise.  It's just the best fit to the known evidence.  When more evidence is uncovered that allows us to find a more accurate explanation.  Meanwhile everyone who read the original Gospel of Mark is now dead despite the promise that the Son of Man would return while some of them were still alive. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

My brother in law had some electrical problem in his heart requiring a pacemaker.  He is a staunch atheist, but when he was having problems with his heart and would essentially die for a few moments, the look of panic and dread on his face before his heart would stop I will never forget.  Since then, he has softened up a tad.  Thank God for pacemakers.

 

god did not provide us with pacemakers.  Those were invented through a long and involved scientific process by dedicated men and women of scientific and medical training.  Render unto Science what is Science's; the rest you can give to your god.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I'm glad that you recovered when you were 16, funguy, and that your brother in law is, I gather, doing OK with his pacemaker.  I'm also glad that it seems you trust/believe/are willing to go with many conclusions of medical science.

 

But it seems as though you are not willing to trust/believe/go with conclusions in cosmology, where the math is a much better predictor because the phenomena under study are more stable and, perhaps, there are fewer possible factors at play than in many patients' medical symptoms.

 

As many have pointed out, you pretty clearly have an inconsistent belief set.  I'm not going to spell out again how your beliefs are inconsistent.  

 

To BAA a little while ago you dismissed his demonstration of the inconsistency of your beliefs.  You waved it off as word games.

 

Yet, if you believe A and B, but the consequences of A entails "not-B," then at least one of your beliefs is false.

 

Which belief in your belief set is false, funguy?

 

It's OK to say that you don't know A or B.  It's not OK to say that you believe, let alone know, A and B and that it's just word games whether one entails the falsity of the other.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

FGR,

 

I'm going to give you one last chance to do the mature and responsible thing and own up to the mistakes you made.

 

It is human to err.

We all make mistakes.  Every one of us.  Mistakes are opportunities to grow and learn.  Please seize this opportunity.  I'll respect you far more if you do the right thing here than if you keep up the bluff and bluster.

 

Over to you.

 

BAA

 

Whatever you want to do with my words, is up to you. 

 

Other than to call call your attention to the fact that you and you alone are responsible for your words, I don't want to do anything with them.  They are your responsibility and I find it telling that you won't step up to the plate and do so.

 

Whatever the so called consequences are for me not playing your word game, is fine with me. 

 

It was your responsibility to understand what you were signing up to (the consequences) before you wrote, "I concur greatly..."

You had the time and opportunity to do and you didn't do it.  Now you have no choice but to reap what you've sown.

 

What are these consequences?

 

Sorry bud! 

You had your chance to find out for yourself and since then I've told you quite plainly what one of them is.  If you can't be bothered to go find out from the recent content of this thread, then I'm certainly not going to cast my pearls before you.  I've no doubt that after helping you understand, you'd trample on my words and then turn on me. 

 

 

[Ravenstar]

 

Funguyrye, I thought of you yesterday.  I took Mervin to get an endoscopy.  Turns out he is diagnosed with ulcers in his esophagus and duodenum.  I asked the gastroenterologist, were the ulcers caused by a combination of acidity and bacteria?  He sort of laughed and said that the cause is very complex.  I said, well, maybe I don't need to know.  he went on to say that really, no one knows a precise answer, but that the meds will help the body heal the ulcers by reducing acidity.

 

So... does this mean that medical science is "funny," or the like?  Well it help to say, "So, medical researchers don't know.  Therefore I'll conclude that GOD was the cause of Mervin's ulcers.  God is right 100% of the time."

 

Would such an answer shed any light on the mechanism of ulcer causation and its treatment?  Would it be a scientific answer?  Should I, perhaps, not give him the meds and instead try to get a prayer and laying on of hands ceremony started?

 

The answers you've given to questions posed above don't amount to scientific answers at all.  I'll trust the gastro guy (one of the aides said "he's the best") rather than ignore his prescription and look to religion for results.

Why would you think I don't believe in Dr.s or medical science?

 

Because they are scientists, and most of their knowledge comes from biology, which is based in evolutionary theory. Was it that hard to figure out? Medical science IS still science.

 

Do you think doctors are educated at the local christian college of theology?

[bornagainathiest]

I'm glad that you recovered when you were 16, funguy, and that your brother in law is, I gather, doing OK with his pacemaker.  I'm also glad that it seems you trust/believe/are willing to go with many conclusions of medical science.

 

But it seems as though you are not willing to trust/believe/go with conclusions in cosmology, where the math is a much better predictor because the phenomena under study are more stable and, perhaps, there are fewer possible factors at play than in many patients' medical symptoms.

 

As many have pointed out, you pretty clearly have an inconsistent belief set.  I'm not going to spell out again how your beliefs are inconsistent.  

 

To BAA a little while ago you dismissed his demonstration of the inconsistency of your beliefs.  You waved it off as word games.

 

Yet, if you believe A and B, but the consequences of A entails "not-B," then at least one of your beliefs is false.

 

Which belief in your belief set is false, funguy?

 

It's OK to say that you don't know A or B.  It's not OK to say that you believe, let alone know, A and B and that it's just word games whether one entails the falsity of the other.

 

Hey Ficino,

 

If you're going to teach FGR the rudiments of logic, here's a scripture-based exercise in logic you might like to set for him.

 

Funguyrye,

Please reconcile this...

 

Matthew 27 : 1 - 7, NIV.

Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people made their plans how to have Jesus executed.

² So they bound him, led him away and handed him over to Pilate the governor.

³ When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders.

⁴ “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”

“What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.”

⁵ So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

⁶ The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.”

⁷ So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. ⁸ That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

 

with this...

 

Acts 1 : 18 & 19, NIV.

¹⁸ (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.

¹⁹ Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

 

...using only logic.

 

Relevant questions

 

1.

How did the money Judas threw into the temple get back into his hands after the Chief Priests had picked it up - seeing as he needed that money to buy the field where he hung himself there?

2.

Was the Field of Blood purchased twice with the same money?  Firstly by Judas, so that he could hang himself there and then again, by the Chief Priests, using the same money, to use as a burial place for foreigners?

3.

Is there any place in God's inerrant, infallible and perfect word for logical impossibilities?

(I.e, total and absolute contradictions between two accounts of the same events.)

.

.

.

 

Have fun! 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

I'm glad that you recovered when you were 16, funguy, and that your brother in law is, I gather, doing OK with his pacemaker.  I'm also glad that it seems you trust/believe/are willing to go with many conclusions of medical science.

 

But it seems as though you are not willing to trust/believe/go with conclusions in cosmology, where the math is a much better predictor because the phenomena under study are more stable and, perhaps, there are fewer possible factors at play than in many patients' medical symptoms.

 

As many have pointed out, you pretty clearly have an inconsistent belief set.  I'm not going to spell out again how your beliefs are inconsistent.  

 

To BAA a little while ago you dismissed his demonstration of the inconsistency of your beliefs.  You waved it off as word games.

 

Yet, if you believe A and B, but the consequences of A entails "not-B," then at least one of your beliefs is false.

 

Which belief in your belief set is false, funguy?

 

It's OK to say that you don't know A or B.  It's not OK to say that you believe, let alone know, A and B and that it's just word games whether one entails the falsity of the other.

 

Hey Ficino,

 

If you're going to teach FGR the rudiments of logic, here's a scripture-based exercise in logic you might like to set for him.

 

Funguyrye,

Please reconcile this...

 

Matthew 27 : 1 - 7, NIV.

Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people made their plans how to have Jesus executed.

² So they bound him, led him away and handed him over to Pilate the governor.

³ When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders.

⁴ “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”

“What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.”

⁵ So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

⁶ The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.”

⁷ So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. ⁸ That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

 

with this...

 

Acts 1 : 18 & 19, NIV.

¹⁸ (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.

¹⁹ Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

 

...using only logic.

 

Relevant questions

 

1.

How did the money Judas threw into the temple get back into his hands after the Chief Priests had picked it up - seeing as he needed that money to buy the field where he hung himself there?

The Pharisees could not take the money and had no ownership of the silver.  So technically, it was still Judas's money when Judas's silver bought Akeldema.  So technically, the property was bought in his name as the Pharisees would not take ownership of the blood money.  It would not make good optics if they used the money in the treasury as they stated it was blood money, similar to how some organizations or charities won't do business with say drug dealers as the money was earned in dishonest ways.    

2.

Was the Field of Blood purchased twice with the same money?  Firstly by Judas, so that he could hang himself there and then again, by the Chief Priests, using the same money, to use as a burial place for foreigners?

See above

3.

Is there any place in God's inerrant, infallible and perfect word for logical impossibilities?

(I.e, total and absolute contradictions between two accounts of the same events.)

Like what?

.

.

.

 

Have fun! 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

 

Now reconcile the different versions of Judas' death, if you don't mind.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

I'm glad that you recovered when you were 16, funguy, and that your brother in law is, I gather, doing OK with his pacemaker.  I'm also glad that it seems you trust/believe/are willing to go with many conclusions of medical science.

 

But it seems as though you are not willing to trust/believe/go with conclusions in cosmology, where the math is a much better predictor because the phenomena under study are more stable and, perhaps, there are fewer possible factors at play than in many patients' medical symptoms.

 

As many have pointed out, you pretty clearly have an inconsistent belief set.  I'm not going to spell out again how your beliefs are inconsistent.  

 

To BAA a little while ago you dismissed his demonstration of the inconsistency of your beliefs.  You waved it off as word games.

 

Yet, if you believe A and B, but the consequences of A entails "not-B," then at least one of your beliefs is false.

 

Which belief in your belief set is false, funguy?

 

It's OK to say that you don't know A or B.  It's not OK to say that you believe, let alone know, A and B and that it's just word games whether one entails the falsity of the other.

 

Hey Ficino,

 

If you're going to teach FGR the rudiments of logic, here's a scripture-based exercise in logic you might like to set for him.

 

Funguyrye,

Please reconcile this...

 

Matthew 27 : 1 - 7, NIV.

Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people made their plans how to have Jesus executed.

² So they bound him, led him away and handed him over to Pilate the governor.

³ When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders.

⁴ “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”

“What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.”

⁵ So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

⁶ The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.”

⁷ So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. ⁸ That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

 

with this...

 

Acts 1 : 18 & 19, NIV.

¹⁸ (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.

¹⁹ Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

 

...using only logic.

 

Relevant questions

 

1.

How did the money Judas threw into the temple get back into his hands after the Chief Priests had picked it up - seeing as he needed that money to buy the field where he hung himself there?

The Pharisees could not take the money and had no ownership of the silver.  So technically, it was still Judas's money when Judas's silver bought Akeldema.  So technically, the property was bought in his name as the Pharisees would not take ownership of the blood money.  It would not make good optics if they used the money in the treasury as they stated it was blood money, similar to how some organizations or charities won't do business with say drug dealers as the money was earned in dishonest ways.    

2.

Was the Field of Blood purchased twice with the same money?  Firstly by Judas, so that he could hang himself there and then again, by the Chief Priests, using the same money, to use as a burial place for foreigners?

See above

3.

Is there any place in God's inerrant, infallible and perfect word for logical impossibilities?

(I.e, total and absolute contradictions between two accounts of the same events.)

Like what?

.

.

.

 

Have fun! 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

 

 

Now reconcile the differences between A and B for Ficino.