Part 3 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

No science is not enemy of religion especially to Christianity and I have stated that many times, but scientist listen carefully I said scientist some of them will twist theories present them as facts to debunk theology for bias reasons or for lack of knowledge and as soon as they do that it substantially affect their credibility. These scientist who claim to only follow logic and facts and yet since they have no sufficient facts to proof that God is none existence they go on to try and relate their science to their personal opinion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...e-is-no-heaven
A belief that heaven or an afterlife awaits us is a "fairy story" for people afraid of death, Stephen Hawking has said.

In a dismissal that underlines his firm rejection of religious comforts, Britain's most eminent scientist said there was nothing beyond the moment when the brain flickers for the final time.

"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark," he added.

Hawking's latest comments go beyond those laid out in his 2010 book, The Grand Design, in which he asserted that there is no need for a creator to explain the existence of the universe. The book provoked a backlash from some religious leaders, including the chief rabbi, Lord Sacks, who accused Hawking of committing an "elementary fallacy" of logic.

This is how corrupt S. Hawking science is if the brain is a computer then like the computer someone has to put them together to program it to make it functional. He implies that the brain computer created itself???

I guess... you...are...a.. machine..according ...to S.Hawking.

 

Nay...not like christians who blame their pain on others.

 

Theory, when used in science, means a testable model that has so far not been proven wrong and makes certain predictions.

Theology can't really be debunked, but that's for the same reason that you can't really debunk an analysis of literature for themes or metaphor or whatever. It's all subjective.

Not really. Dr. Hawking is still regarded as one of the finest physicists of the modern day.

Someone is unaware of the null hypothesis. Or the idea that something needs positive evidence to be considered, as opposed to lacking negative evidence. After all, do you seriously consider unicorns, leprechauns, werewolves, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? There is no proof of their non-existence.

What's wrong with a man having an opinion?

The Chief Rabbi has a vested, biased interest in saying Dr. Hawking is wrong, so why should I trust him?

Plus, the Rabbi fails to mention which elementary fallacy of logic has been committed. Can you mention it?

The body created the brain, yes, as a part of development as a result of numerous genes controlling for the formation and structure of the brain. And, by looking at animals that are more or less derived from the most recent common ancestor of all animals with nervous tissue, we see a clear progression from neural nets to encephalization and the consequent enlargement and novel development of brain structures in mammals.

Not sure why all the ellipses are necessary, but it doesn't really horrify me to think of myself as an organic machine.

 

They did happen.

The 1000 year kingdom can, as a thief, too.
It "robbed" the whole Roman World of its pagan religion, and stole the myths away from them for a millennium, exactly,... beginning in the lives of Matthew and the others:





Rev. 20:4 And I saw thrones (of Universal Christian authority) and they, (the 144,000 monks of Catholic monasticism: [Rev14:4]), sat upon them, (i.e.; Christianity, as mandated by Emperor Theo I, was the ONLY legal religion in the Empire, after 380AD), and (theocratic) judgment was given unto them (in the days of Catholic Monasticism): and I saw the souls, (the spirit-like psyches or thinking) of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the (one) word of God, (Truth), and which had not worshipped (by participation in the paganistic practices and sexual excesses fueling) the beast (that was Roman Culture, including the economic system which had been based upon selfish self-interest), neither his image (on his coinage), neither had received his mark (of ledgered accounts recorded) upon their foreheads, or in (wages in) their hands (those monks living in moneyless monastic environments);

and they, (the saints/apostles), lived (as angels in the minds of the Christians who have followed since the appearance of the Gospels in 54AD, i.e., those beheaded saints, in the memories of the congregations who worshipped in churches built upon the bones of their remains)...
.... and (they) reigned (in Monasticism) with Christ a thousand years, (from 54 AD upon the appearance of the Holy Comforter, until 1054 AD with the first Schism of Greek Orthodoxy).

////
Matt. 24:30 And then, (hearlding the end of pagan myth [Zech 13:2], and astrological worship: [Rev. 6:12-17]), shall appear (in the clouds, [1Thes 4:16], to Constantine and 12,000 soldiers: [As reported to us by the historian Eusibius]), the sign, (The Cross), of the Son of man, [Matt 26:64]), in heaven, (ushering forth the new paradigm of monotheistic Hebrew Christianity):
and then shall all the tribes of the earth (in the Western European Roman Empire) mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, (seen by Constantine himself and 12,000 soldiers as reported by Eusibius, the historian), with (socio-political) power ([Rev 4:11] in the establishment of Universal Roman Christianity: [Rev 20:4]), and great glory (in a Pope, identifiable with Appollyon, the destroyer, Abaddon in the Hebrew: [Rev 9:11] during the reign, 467AD, of Hilary I).

 

All of that is nothing more than proving the bible with itself and you people still have not learned that it don't work.

I have seen this on here before exactly where does the great church forger Eusibius mention this in his writing?

So how does this prove this jesus appeared before his generation?

Oh and for the record the Gospels did not appear in their present forum until around 70 CE......your 54AD is most likely the Pauline writings which predate the Gospels.

 

Although some do believe that Matthew 24 (and its correlaries in Mark 13 and Luke 17 and 21) is a reference to the end of the world, that is not my take on it.

The Greek phrase, sunteleias tou aionos (translated "end of the world" in the King James Version) probably refers to the end of the age, instead. In fact, many translations have rendered it just that way. (The Revised Standard Version has "consummation of the age"; which is very close to the same thing.)

This likely points to the destruction of Jerusalem (including the destruction of the second temple) by the the armies of Titus in AD 70. (True, the Mosaic Age came to a close--and the Christian Age began--with the crucifixion of Jesus. But the destruction of Jerusalem put an exclamation point upon it.)

For a parallel, see sunteleias tou aionos in Matthew 28:20b: "and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (NASB)

Note: Verse 2 of Matthew 24 may be instructive, in this regard: "And He said to them, 'Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.'" (NASB)

 

Try to explain that to them.

 

Christians have always sack it up and die for others pain, miseries and sufferings.

 

So the brain is like a computer is also a testable model that has not been proven wrong, or that humans evolve from apes. So this would mean you are not human, you are a machine and your ancestors are from which ape species?

That I agree but as you can see how some scientist are debunking theology neglecting the fact that religion has always been part of human evolution.

No doubt he is a good physicist but for him to try to calculate or postulate theology with physics he is only corrupting physics and theology.

There is sufficient proof those are none existence, but the proof of a creator is logicall and scientifically plausible to say that things started from nothing is contradicting the very concept of sceince which is relativity or nothing comes from nothing.

It is wrong when they insist it is factual or sceintific it corrupts the very foundation of science.

The Rabbi is just one of the many who disagree with Hawking and he call him out on that because such comments or opinon coming from a suppossed very learn scientist such as Hawking should know better that nothing comes from nothing or that human brain are not computer or machines that when human die their body get tossed away into scrap yard.

Is this the reason why atheist are emotionless because they are machines while Christianity is about human emotion and feelings?

Maybe if we dig deeper we will find out, elementary fallacy = humans just appear from no where?

And this boils down to who design it to be that way? Computer needs a creator, humans don't need a creator? This is another elementary fallacy.

According to S. Hawking you might be an organic machine? Maybe this is why we have religion to take away the machine in humans and make us more real human?
Reminds me of an old 1970s movie starring Richard Harris "A man called Horse" one scene when he was being drag and treated like an animal he yelled "I AM A MAN!" and the Indian start treating him as a man not a horse. In S. Hawking case "I AM A MACHINE!" and for Charles Darwin "I AM AN APE"

Ever stop and think if Darwin postulate that humans evolve from apes, could it be posssible that apes actually evolve from humans??

 

Not by all sceintist supported it but it is being marketed because there is nothing else out there that is none Biblical and as you pointed out it is a theory. A theory that makes no sense. Do you really believe that humans evolve from apes? If so from which ape species did each human race evolve from? And how come apes are no longer evloving in spite of the many laboratory experiment being conducted? The only evolution that scientist have discover and develop to success is CLONING they can now create living things and interbeed cells to make them what they want them to be. But still, it require a creator and the creator here is the human sceintist.

The more reason S. Hawking and his likes should stay away from theology.

He does not have to directly say there exist no creator or maybe he is actually saying there is a creator? His theory of evolution clearly does not make logically sense.

It is ironic that anti Christian always ask for proof but in Darwin's case they seem to be satisfy that humans evolve from apes even without any proof, don't tell me just because apes seems to resemble humans that is proof?? Or if S. Hawking say that humans are like computers where is the proof, before there were computers there already exist humans maybe it is the other way around computers are like humans.
Can't even provide any link from which ape species each human race evolve from.

 

I know a few Russians who might disagree with that.

 

A theory is a predictive model based on observation, not a mere guess.

Just because you have a hard time making sense of it does not mean that it is for other people or that it is incorrect. Arguing from personal incredulity does not really make a sound argument.

Only in the sense that I "believe" that the earth and sun revolve around a common point that is nearly in the center of the sun or that nuclear fission occurs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Yeah, it's Wiki, but it's accurate enough.

However, modern Homo sapiens evolved from Sahelanthropus which eventually evolved into the various Australopithecine apes which evolved into the various species in the genus Homo.

Because evolution occurs at the population level and, for species with long generation times such as apes, can take thousands of years for significant changes to occur. Further, modern non-human apes are experiencing problems from genetic bottlenecking because humans are vastly shrinking their gene pools, which can affect the rate of evolution, especially if the majority of the animals that are surviving are relatively homogenous as far as alleles go.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/science/yeast-reveals-how-fast-a-cell-can-form-a-body.html?_r=0

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

http://www.hhmi.org/genesweshare/e120.html

Seriously, this is just from the first page of a Google search for "evolution experiments". You can't even put in the effort to do a 10 second Google search and you expect us to take you seriously?

The E. coli evolution experiment has almost no human input aside from introducing the bacteria to new flasks every day. The E. coli does all the work. Similarly, a lot of other lab experiments on evolution (stuff like with fish such as gobies) simply involves humans adjusting variables and making observations. The environment and the organisms do all the work, not the humans.

Because applying the scientific method to theology exposes it for the foolishness that it is?

Darwin personally believed in YHWH and Jesus, but that has no bearing on the theory whatsoever. Newton was an alchemist, but that doesn't mean we're compelled to believe in a philosopher's stone in order to do calculus.

And which part of evolution violates logic? If organisms have heritable material (they do) that is not perfectly copied over time (it isn't), then over time organisms will change as they breed (they do). There's not really anything there that isn't logically sound.

There's plenty of proof of evolution.

Morphology, genes, biochemistry, fossil evidence, and so forth all strongly show the common descent of man and the other apes from a single ancestor.

Human brains operate in a manner similar to computers. It's not exact, but Dr. Hawking was using what we like to call a "metaphor", wherein one makes a comparison between two things that are not identical.

That's because humanity originated in the East African Rift Valley and dispersed from there throughout the rest of the world, though humans descended of people outside of Subsaharan Africa have about 3-6% of genes contributed from Neanderthals due to interbreeding going on in the Near East as modern humans were migrating out of Africa. All the races of humans descended from a single population originally and our nearest non-human ape ancestors were from several million years ago and modern humans developed only some 200,000 years ago, while the intermediates were humans.

Though, honestly, it's a bit dishonest to differentiate between human ancestors of modern humans and ape ancestors of modern humans; it's like saying the cat ancestors of modern cats and the feliform ancestors of modern cats; it's using both a specific and a general term to describe things. Humans are classified as apes, after all. Humans are just specific sorts of apes.

 

These are his personal musings on the subject, not peer reviewed science.
You really don't have any understanding of the difference, do you?

 

That was a use of metaphor on Dr. Hawking's part.

Yep, that's a theory, and one that is rock solid at this point. One would basically require a time machine to disprove it at this point.

All humans (including yourself) are descended from numerous ape species, as I mentioned in the other post. And, again, the comparison to computers is a use of metaphor.

So is pareidolia, that doesn't mean a cloud shaped like a horse is a horse or that Jesus appears on burnt toast. Humans acquire strange ideas; that doesn't mean those ideas are correct.

So, how does one disprove, say, Catholicism or Lutheranism with theology? Oh, right, can't be done. It's just like arguing that "A Catcher in the Rye" is actually about minority oppression in the 1800s in Brazil. As long as you can throw out enough BS to make it seem correct, no one can really say that you're wrong.

What evidence is that? Where's your proof on the non-existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Then you're creator requires a creator and so on ad infinitum. So, why not just trim the fat and just start with the universe instead of an infinite stream of creators?

Also, science currently does not say where the matter of the universe originated from, merely what that matter did in the first parts of time that the universe became the recognizable universe it is today.

For repetition: no branch of science currently describes where the matter in the universe ultimately originated from.

Dr. Hawking's never mentioned where the matter that forms the universe originally came from.

And dualism, the only thing that makes us surviving the death of our bodies tenable, is logically absurd, due to the act that if spirit can interact with us, we should be able to interact with spirit and thus detect it.

Yes, that's the only reason why I love my wife and son and have things like passions, appreciation for beauty and art, and otherwise engage in activities that have emotional rewards. Because I'm an emotionless automaton. :V

The idea that YHWH just appeared from nowhere is a logical fallacy, as science makes no claims on the origin of the matter that constitutes the universe.

Not really; we know how brains can develop without intervention from any entity, whereas we observe computers being built all the time. We also observe all the time that brains develop without creators.

So, there you go.

So, something false to distract us from the truth is how you're describing religion?

Well, at least you're starting to be honest with yourself.

Humans are demonstrably not horses; we are, however, demonstrably apes and it can be argued that we are machines, insofar as we are physical things that engage in actions. Machine is a very vague word that not terribly descriptive, so describing humans as such does not necessarily imply anything untoward (cars, mousetraps, nuclear fission reactors, refrigerators, and so forth are all machines, and humans are integral to such machines as simple levers and wedges that aren't hooked up to motors, thus making humans machines in the more traditional sense when they are using an axe or crowbar just as surely as a pneumatic log splitter is a machine).

No, because the evidence doesn't support that conclusion in the least.

 

thank you for getting it!!!!

 

Houston has a problem alright its with your answers.
Fifth time failing now. Other posters are also explaining this to you now as well. You are not getting it.
You have stated that "Atheists corrupted Science" I asked you for the evidence to support your claim. Posting Hawking and Darwin have unsupported theories is incorrect. A theory is a theory. And as a pure undisputable fact, Hawkings and Darwin have mountains of evidence to support their theories.
Math is math, a fossil is a fossil. Carbon dating doesnt lie it is fact. A T rex fossil is not made up it is real. Evolution is proven factually by studying animal records. It is not open to conjecture.
Your belief has zero evidence. NONE at all to support your belief. All you have is a book and your faith that the people who wrote it were speaking to god.
You need to cite specifically where they corrupted their scientific findings. Science is science. The first thing you do in Science is remove the bias. If you intentionally corrupt your findings there will be a million scientists waiting to prove your theory wrong and if you have corrupted your data you will be an outcast in the scientific community. I would love to hear what you and the OP have discovered Darwin and Hawkings did to "corrupt" their findings. You two are apparently the only ones with the information. Please give it to me. If valid I will disprove them myself and make a fortune and help you at the same time.
Here Ill illustrate. We know Dinosaurs existed because we can dig up their fossils and hold them in our hands and assemble their skeltal structures. We can see evolution in every single living thing on earth including humans. We have wisdom teeth and the appendix. We needed wisdom teeth to crush bones early in our evolution. As our brains got larger and we became smarter our wisdom teeth were no longer needed and our jaws are no longer large enough to hold them. Almost everyone has them removed. Some people are even born without them. This is evidence we are still evolving (as with every other single living thing on earth including viruses. Darwin was correct based on the mountain of evidence supporting it.
If you put your hand on a hot stove it will get burned. This theory is proven by the fact that it happens everytime you do it. The melting point of your skin is also scientifically calculated and also supports this theory. If you make the argument this science is corrupt you need to explain exactly why the science is wrong with your own scientific facts.
If you dont have your own facts. Your argument is lost.
This is where you post your science showing humans didnt evolve. I just gave you two examples that every third grader knows to be true based on evidence in their own bodies.

 

Quote Posted by Mjolnir:

You're side stepping the question. God can alter the laws of logic: true or false? Only requires a single word to answer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry I just don't give a single word to answer, I always prefer to give a thorough thoughtful answer not too short or not too long but just enough to make it an understandable valid response.

Let me begin by saying we Christians do not claim that God created the laws of logic. It is not our view that He created something with particular properties, so He could therefore change these properties.

Instead, we believe that the laws of logic are simply a reflection of the thoughts of God, and as such, they reveal His logical, perfect nature. We understand that God is limited by His own nature, He is not self contradictory. Just as there is no such thing as a 'square' circle (because it would violate the nature of what a circle is all about), God cannot exist outside His nature, which includes the nature of His perfect thoughts.

Logic is necessary simply because God is the necessary Being that He is. The laws of logic are absolute, unchangeable, internally consistent and transcendent simply because God Himself is absolute, unchangeable, internally consistent and transcendent.

 

So, since the tough questions couldn't be answered y'all have changed the subject and we're onto evolution now?

I have a question, and I think I asked it on one of the other threads, but never got back to see if there was an answer.

Why do Christians not see the fallacy of worshiping the King of the Jews?
Christians thru the ages have persecuted the Jews and run them out of their countries and yet they revere the gods and heroes of those same Jews Their much loved Bible was written by those Jews and yet the Christians do not trust the Jews to tell the truth, so why do they have such unerring faith in that book?
Isn't that hypoctritical?

It was the Jews who wrote that they were God's chosen. Why do you believe that?
Why would you believe that their ancient King is some kind of God?
Only a small segment of Jews rejected him.

Another group saw a great opportunity to use and control those pesky pagan gentiles. By way of deception they have done war upon you and you gobbled it up like fools.

These same Jews set up the Roman Church and got you to pay for their prayers.
If you spoke against them they killed you and confiscated your property.
You have noticed haven't you, that the Roman Church is the Richest corporation in the World?

 

LOL
Prophecy is expected to prove out historically.
That is what is "proving the Bible," here.

The prophecies mention time and again about the kingdom to come did come as soon as the Holy Comforter appeared, in 54AD, as the Gospel of Matthew followed immediately with Mark, Luke, and of course, John who also wrote the Revelation that I posted.

We have a historian of the time explain the details of Matthew 24, with the SIGN of the son-of-man, a Cross, coming in the clouds.
We have the historical record of onstantine immediately issuing the Edict of Toleration thereafter, in 313AD, after he and his men saw that sign.
We have the historical evidence that no other christian church was permited for the 1000 years between the coming of the Holy Comforter in 54AD and the first Great Schism of Greek Orthodoxy.

 

All self fulfilling BS......sitting here just about with flu so short answers maybe constant for a while.

 

Again for the fifth if you like sixth and seventh time your science is corrupt that is why you act just like S. Hawking theories...a machine. Machines have limited knowledge, they can not see the difference between fallacy and truth. They have a mountain of THEORIES not facts. Again proof to me that human evolve from apes if you can do that I will dress in a monkey suit and stand outside and scream "ung gawa!" If you can't I want you to yell
"AAAAHHH AAAAHHhh ahhhh... ah.... ah... oh... ahhh...!!"
Oh, to make it easy for you proof that apes evolve from humans.

 

I know some Russians that will disagree with you too.

 

You are an abysmal spokesman for your faith.

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/09/21/humans-evolved-from-apes

 

Quote Posted by dairyair:
You keep stating this as fact, yet you've never proved it or even offered any simulation for proof.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is a fact that something can't come from nothing. It is elementary sound logic that ...."from nothing comes nothing...because something can't come from nothing while from something comes something else"... which I can't understand why you have an inability to accept the logic. The only way to make you understand it is to give you a simple illustration.

Let's suppose I ask you to do a favor and so I say to you, "Here's enough money and a list of supplies I want you to purchase at the hardware store because I'm going to build myself a work bench." You then proceed to go to the hardware store and later on you return with nothing. You tell me you couldn't purchase anything because the hardware store was closed. So I tell you, "Well because you brought back nothing I cannot start building my work bench so nothing will be done today." So this is an example of simple logic that from nothing comes nothing...are you following me so far my friend?...lol

Then the next day, you go to the hardware store when they open and purchase all the materials I listed and bring it back to me. I then begin to build my work bench and eventually it is finished. So this is where from something comes something else (work bench). The work bench was designed by me and built from materials that were purchased from the hardware store. So from something (which includes you, me, money, tools, and the materials) came something else (work bench).

The work bench did not come from nothing, or just popped into existence from nothing. So once again..."from nothing comes nothing..because something can't come from nothing while from something comes something else."

Can you give me a simple illustration of how something (materialistic) can come from nothing?