Would the divinity of Jesus be affected by the consideration of a finite beginning?

[Bassyhead]

One of the definitions for "theory" is:


<< An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture >>


Theory

Now look at "law":
Law

 

[Elledan]

<< One of the definitions for "theory" is:


<< An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture >>


Theory

Now look at "law":
Law >>


*groans*

With science, a theory is as good as a law, because NOTHING can be absolute, since there's always the chance that some conflicting evidence is found.

Since we can not know whether we know everything (and therefore don't have limited information or knowledge), a theory is the best we can do.

Of course, for (a)theists, this is very hard to grasp.

 

[Bassyhead]

Maybe you should brush up on your reading skills. A theory does not equal a law. A theory becomes a law only and only if it is proven. Are you saying your belief in evolution or whatever is based on a theory, and is "the best we can do"? Let me know when you find "conflicting evidence".



<<

<< One of the definitions for "theory" is:

<< An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture >>

TheoryNow look at "law":Law >>

*groans*With science, a theory is as good as a law, because NOTHING can be absolute, since there's always the chance that some conflicting evidence is found.Since we can not know whether we know everything (and therefore don't have limited information or knowledge), a theory is the best we can df course, for (a)theists, this is very hard to grasp. >>

 

[VirusDub]

<< A theory does not equal a law. A theory becomes a law only and only if it is proven. >>

How many times does this need to be said? In science, nothing is ever definite. The term theory in science is the best explanation available for a certain phenomenon. Have you ever heard of relativity theory? Quantum theory? Theists don't seem to have a problem accepting those theories as laws. But as soon as evolution comes into play, theories are meaningless. Why?

 

[Moonbeam]

Law 1. A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.

In other words an accepted theory, like evolution.

 

[Bassyhead]

<< Law 1. A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.In other words an accepted theory, like evolution. >>



No, "conduct or procedure" is irrevelant to what is being discussed, nor is there any apparent "agreement" or "custom".

 

[Bassyhead]

read


<< Law:
A theory that has been substantially verified. >>





<< Confirmation of theories When
a theory is supported, it merely means that you can have more confidence in it.
It does not mean that the theory has been proven correct. There is no way to
prove a theory correct. There are always yet-to-be conducted experiments
that would not support the theory. Due to that possibility, we say the theory
can't be proven.  You can have more
confidence in a theory if it accounts for data that other theories can't. >>

 

[Moonbeam]

In other words evolution.

 

[Elledan]

<< read


<< Law:
A theory that has been substantially verified. >>

>>


Yes, read: "Law: A theory that has been substantially verified."

Evolution does fit this definition perfectly.

 

[Bassyhead]

I think not. It's the "Theory of Evolution", not the "Law of Evolution". If it fit perfectly, there would be no arguement.




<<

<< read

<< Law:A theory that has been substantially verified. >>

>>

Yes, read: "Law: A theory that has been substantially verified."Evolution does fit this definition perfectly. >>

 

[JupiterJones]

Yes, read: "Law: A theory that has been substantially verified."

Evolution does fit this definition perfectly.

Two questions:

1. Then why is this not published in textbooks as the Law of Evolution (as in Law of Thermodynamics)?

2. Why are we discussing evolution in a thread about the divinity of Jesus

 

[Moonbeam]

To call it the Law of Evolution would be an excellent idea. Then we would deal with the theories on the mechanisms of the Law of Evolution, where the real action is.

I had a question you didn't answer that was, I thought, on topic save for the request for Christians only. Why didn't you answer it?

 

[MadRat]

<<1. Then why is this not published in textbooks as the Law of Evolution (as in Law of Thermodynamics)?>>

Elledan is just talking out of his ass. He's so far off topic and doesn't know when to let go of the losing battle.

<<2. Why are we discussing evolution in a thread about the divinity of Jesus>>

Apparently because Elledan, the shallow, needs some light. Lets pray for him.

<<"Would it be fair to ask, if Jesus is God and has no beginning and end, where his body is now, the one he showed up in?"

I had a question you didn't answer that was, I thought, on topic save for the request for Christians only. Why didn't you answer it?>>

Moonbeam must have misunderstood, "NOTE: This is a topic for the Christians that believe in the divinity of Jesus, not for people that want to mock his existence." It said no such requirement that one had to be Christian. Furthermore he overlooked his answer from earlier in the thread: "He rose to Heaven on a cloud, therefore is still alive in body as well as spirit."

<<To call it the Law of Evolution would be an excellent idea.>>

Pull your head out, man.

 

[thraashman]

You speak out your ass, theory is not law. Lather, rinse, repeat again. You rant is ignorant of truth.

Ok, I stopped reading the thread here, so this may have been stated already. But evolution falls under the branch in science of Biology, and in Biology, theory is as high as it goes, there are no laws in biology. I just wanted to inform you, because there is more support for evolution than for any other explanation of how humanity came to be.





Note, I make no mention of Jesus because I am intentionally staying out of the argument here.

 

[Moonbeam]

I must say that the comparison that somebody posted between Christianity and Islam was an eyeopener. They maintain that there is no God but God and that the trinity stuff is essentially bogus for that reason. It strikes me as a much more logically tight religion and other areas. I find the stuff about what to do to heathens a bit offputting, however. There were some pretty bad assed heathens in those days though.

 

[MadRat]

Moonbeam you continue to go off-topic. This is not about Islam, its about the divinity of Jesus Christ.

 

[AMDJunkie]

Moonbeam: When you find the bones of Jesus Christ, there will cease to be Christianity.

Elledan: Good article, but a few points. It argues that it is impossible for the miracles to be historically accurate becasue it does not have the required evidence to validate them. Yet why would anyone follow a person who had authority as the Messiah if He did not perform something to prove to the people? Surely the son of God must be able to control the cosmos. And as to the historians, Jesus did not perform in the Roman courts and the noble educated crowds. The people who followed him were the lowly, downtrodden, sickly, and poor. They were fishers, farmers, beggers, whores, and laborers. How many knew how to write? If there were a few literate, did they know how to write a proper historical account that would be acceptable to the highly skeptic standards of today? Do not forget to take into account of the numbers of papers, books, and documents that are original and lost forever as time rolls forward. In short, there are doubts about the actual existance of Jesus Christ, but there are nothing that totally eliminates the possibility of His existance.

 

[rgwalt]

<<

<< read


<< Law:
A theory that has been substantially verified. >>

>>


Yes, read: "Law: A theory that has been substantially verified."

Evolution does fit this definition perfectly. >>



Bwahahahahaha!!!

Substantially verified... right...

There are two parts to the theory of evolution... The first is chemical evolution, or the beginning of life on earth. We are talking about how simple molecules combined over time to form DNA. There is NO good theory to explain how this happened. The current models of the earth at the time life developed do not fit the conditions used in experiments to generate life (specifically the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment).

Furthermore, most people don't understand the other part of the theory of evolution. Current scientists believe that Darwin's theories on competition and natural selection are wrong. In fact, they believe the major driving force behind evolution is random chance. Darwin was right in that one can see a progression through the fossil record, but he was wrong to think it was motivated by survival of the most well adapted species. It is more of a survival of the species that was in the right place at the right time. Species that survived mass extinction events became dominent.

Elledan... here is a good read for you.

Ryan

 

[Moonbeam]

Golly, MadRat, it was about what Islam says about the divinity of Christ and implies that your question only arises because Christians got off on the wrong foot by claiming that Jesus was God. Once you introduce that complexity, you have to be a mental gymnast to shoe-horn it into a sensical doctrine. Jesus was a prophet, end of acrobatics. Simple. And I like simple.

 

[Moonbeam]

Anybody care to answer about the body and the abandonment?

 

[Elledan]

<< Moonbeam: When you find the bones of Jesus Christ, there will cease to be Christianity.

Elledan: Good article, but a few points. It argues that it is impossible for the miracles to be historically accurate becasue it does not have the required evidence to validate them. Yet why would anyone follow a person who had authority as the Messiah if He did not perform something to prove to the people? >>

Why do people follow the leader(s) of a cult? Not because they perform some miracles.


<< Surely the son of God must be able to control the cosmos. >>


- the existance of not a single god/goddess has been verified.
- the existance of Jesus is doubtful at best
- therefore it's illogical to call Jesus the 'son of god'.


<< And as to the historians, Jesus did not perform in the Roman courts and the noble educated crowds. The people who followed him were the lowly, downtrodden, sickly, and poor. They were fishers, farmers, beggers, whores, and laborers. How many knew how to write? If there were a few literate, did they know how to write a proper historical account that would be acceptable to the highly skeptic standards of today? Do not forget to take into account of the numbers of papers, books, and documents that are original and lost forever as time rolls forward. >>

Uhm, these followers of Jesus weren't the only one who could have written down something about Jesus. Outsiders who did not follow Jesus certainly would have written down something about 'a most peculiar man', or something similar, if they even described some local events.


<< In short, there are doubts about the actual existance of Jesus Christ, but there are nothing that totally eliminates the possibility of His existance. >>

D'uh. Just like there are doubts about the existance of every single god, yet no one can disprove the existance of these gods.

 

[AMDJunkie]

Moonbeam: Remember, Jesus Christ ascended into heaven body and soul. And Jesus was human when he was up on that cross, I suppose you wouldn't be begging your creator to let you die as you hang there nailed.

 

[Elledan]

<< There are two parts to the theory of evolution... The first is chemical evolution, or the beginning of life on earth. We are talking about how simple molecules combined over time to form DNA. There is NO good theory to explain how this happened. The current models of the earth at the time life developed do not fit the conditions used in experiments to generate life (specifically the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment). >>

Eh, this is called the theory of Biogenesis. It's not evolution.



<< Furthermore, most people don't understand the other part of the theory of evolution. Current scientists believe that Darwin's theories on competition and natural selection are wrong. In fact, they believe the major driving force behind evolution is random chance. Darwin was right in that one can see a progression through the fossil record, but he was wrong to think it was motivated by survival of the most well adapted species. It is more of a survival of the species that was in the right place at the right time. Species that survived mass extinction events became dominent. >>


Evolution is a fact. The mechanisms behind it is the only thing we aren't certain about.

 

[rgwalt]

<<

<< There are two parts to the theory of evolution... The first is chemical evolution, or the beginning of life on earth. We are talking about how simple molecules combined over time to form DNA. There is NO good theory to explain how this happened. The current models of the earth at the time life developed do not fit the conditions used in experiments to generate life (specifically the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment). >>

Eh, this is called the theory of Biogenesis. It's not evolution.



<< Furthermore, most people don't understand the other part of the theory of evolution. Current scientists believe that Darwin's theories on competition and natural selection are wrong. In fact, they believe the major driving force behind evolution is random chance. Darwin was right in that one can see a progression through the fossil record, but he was wrong to think it was motivated by survival of the most well adapted species. It is more of a survival of the species that was in the right place at the right time. Species that survived mass extinction events became dominent. >>


Evolution is a fact. The mechanisms behind it is the only thing we aren't certain about. >>



I agree with you that evolution is fact. We can see it in the fossil record. My point was that most people who argue for evolution are arguing for old theories that are in fact incorrect. One is free to believe in whatever mechanism they choose, but I myself believe in Intelligent Design.

Furthermore, no matter what you call it (chemical evolution, biogenesis, etc) there is no good theory or explanation on how life began on earth from simple molecules.

Ryan

 

[Moonbeam]

It doesn't have to be an either or thingi. The most fit for survival didn't survive a direct comet hit, but in the stillness of the vast oceans even a slight advantage would tend (tend) to servive.