Noah and the Ark

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Aquila

God isn't subject to the laws of science. Nor is God confined by space or time.

Technically and theologically we are in agreement. However, could a case be made that just as Jesus Christ (the "God-man") emptied Himself and became subject to the "laws of science" (laws of nature really, science merely observes what nature is doing) that God also "empties" Himself at times (perhaps most of the time?) and allows "nature to take it's course?"

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Technically and theologically we are in agreement. However, could a case be made that just as Jesus Christ (the "God-man") emptied Himself and became subject to the "laws of science" (laws of nature really, science merely observes what nature is doing) that God also "empties" Himself at times (perhaps most of the time?) and allows "nature to take it's course?"

When looking at our lives and at nature itself I just don't see miracles and God's intervention all the time.

However, when I take a step back and look at "all the time" - the whole thing appears miraculous and I see the handiwork of God.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The "Watchmaker God"?

But the phrase "agnosticism" was coined to reflect the Greek: The prefix "a-" (not) with "gnosis" (knowledge). An agnostic believes that there is not enough knowledge or information to make an informed decision on the question of God's existence (any God).

A deist posits that there is a God - though obviously not One that is acceptable to many other belief systems. Thus the deist is not an agnostic.

Right. Just sayin' maybe he meant deist.

[NotforSale]

Originally Posted by SlowFade

How is it all in God's hands? How do you know this scientifically? You do well with understanding reality until you insist on an invisible friend.

I think my terminology for my Invisible Friend, would be more like my Responsible Friend.

We link responsibility to every invented "Thing" we possess. Nothing we use lacks this responsibility.

To deem Creation without a responsible "Person" would require more faith than to deem it with one.

I will also pose a question regarding your idea of no God; Is it possible for you to live alone and survive, or do we need another to fulfill the future (creation) of men?

[SlowFade]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Your "reasoning" here is seriously degrading. You're beginning to sound like "Michael the Disciple."

Please don't associate me with someone else. My arguments stand alone.

Just exactly where did I "admit that the Bible is so outlandish it can't be believed?"

You admit that a six day creation is impossible given the data. That means that the Bible is wrong. You deny a world wide flood. That too demands that the Bible is wrong. It's claims are absolutely in error compared to the data - data that you reportedly believe.

I think that if you paid attention to what I was trying to say rather than working on your caricatures you might not be such a sneering cynic. Cynicism alone is fine, even warranted when you consider some of the fundy babble - but a more "real" approach is to allow others to state their position and to not try and invent new positions for them with such a disparaging attitude.

You're the one who pointed out how impossible it is for the Bible to be correct. I just agree with you. Yet you still cling to the security blanket of the notion of "God".

And technically, the "agnostic higher power" doesn't really even exist - at least not in the minds of the agnostics anyway. If one believes in the "higher power" then they have moved from agnosticism to some form of theism.

No higher power exists.

[SlowFade]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Has it ever occurred to you guys that many of your defenses of literal (or figurative) Biblical innerancy and inspiration could apply just as well to any purported holy book? I don't know if they do this, but Mormons could say "you can't understand (our view of) God unless He draws you and you seek Him."

I could play that game, too! If you are really sincere in your quest for truth, God will lead you to the same conclusion He led me to: you will be an agnostic.

Exactly. Religion is circular logic. And religious people appear to have some form of psychosis. It's sad to see grown adults who need an invisible friend to help them cope with life.

[SlowFade]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Here is an excellent example of the fruit of evolutionary thinking. If you can't believe what the Bible says how can you believe it's message? I firmly believe in what the Bible says. I believe that one day so call "science" will be shown to be false and God's Word true to it's natural reading.

The "fruit of evolutionary thinking" is knowing the truth. Religious people lie so much they believe themselves. Of course I can't believe what the Bible says, it's wrong. Evidence and facts prove that. And as for it's message, it's just hope for the hopeless who can't cope with death.

[KWSS1976]

Slowfade what your take on how the world was created?

[SlowFade]

Originally Posted by pelathais

This is an example of an Association Fallacy or a "Red Herring."

SlowFade didn't even touch on "evolutionary thinking" but was following the theme of the thread - Noah's Ark. (Talk about presumption! Staying on the theme of a thread!)

SlowFade's declared unbelief may have many different origins that their personal experience would have to testify to. For us to come along and try to use their belief system (unbelief system?) as a polemic tool for advocating acceptance of things that are clearly not warranted by the Bible nor the natural sciences is unfair to all the players.

The Bible isn't warranted by natural science. Why even cling to the Bible? It's just a fairy tale full of miraculous gibberish.

[SlowFade]

Originally Posted by KWSS1976

Wheres the boat????

There never was a boat.