The Necessity of Sin for God's Glory
Offline Just some thoughts here:
If the Christian god didn't want sin to exist-- if it is such an infinite offense against him, you would think he would have simply designed humans that do not sin. The argument then arises that we cannot have free will without the option to sin against this god. However, this is a poor argument because having the option to do a thing does not make it necessary to do it; I have the option to jump off of a tall building or into the path of on an oncoming train, but my ability to reason makes it clear that doing so is not in the interest of my well being.
Therefore, we must conclude that God could have created humans with free will, the choice to sin, and the ability to reason well enough to never choose to sin. In the case of Adam and Eve, for example, God tells them not to eat the apple, but they still eat it. Who is at fault here? God is. Either God did not create Adam and Eve with the proper observation and reasoning faculties to properly utilize the information provided by God (don't eat the apple) or God provided inadequate information.
Now, let's say that God did create humans who had free will and would never disobey him. Humans would be self sustaining, and therefore, God would no longer be necessary.
But this is a god that demands to be worshipped and glorified. And it's hard to be worthy of worship when your creations are as perfect as you are.
It then follows that if God wants to be worshipped, he must intentionally create imperfect beings. He must create humans in such a way that they will need him. And this is why we are constantly told that we are born sinners; we are imperfect, deserving of punishment and we need God to save us.
What we have is exactly like the villain in "The Incredibles". He longs so badly to be considered a hero that he creates a catastrophe so that he can pretend to save the world from it.
Just think: If we were made perfect, we wouldn't need a god. We must conclude that we've got sin all wrong. God doesn't hate sin. He loves sin because without it, he would be unnecessary.
One must wonder why God didn't just create other gods to commune with. He can create a universe from nothing, so why not just create beings that don't need air, food, water, etc?
Of course, God must create these things, because man created God. What is written in the Bible is exactly what you would expect from primitive men trying to explain their origins using only the information available to them.
- Login to post comments
You don't understand. You established that we are given a choice and that is a fact. Remember? Your sentence begins, "The fact we are given a choice..."
Nothing further needs to be said. You stated that we are given a choice as a fact, therefore you automatically concede that we have a choice.
Furthermore, if every human being chose chocolate over vanilla, that means they made a choice. How can every human being make a choice if they don't have a choice?
Your argument is akin to saying, "If every dog jumps, does that mean dogs really jump?"
No, you're not going to weasel your way out of this one. You said "Only God can predict the future." I predicted the future, the sun rose today, and I am God.
You then said, "No, only specific facts!" I pointed out that "the sun will rise tomorrow" is a specific fact. I predicted it, therefore I am God.
Now you want to say you're talking about a "probability in heaven"? How do you go from predicting specific facts to probabilities? You referenced prophecies that you claimed were fulfilled on earth. Obviously, this has nothing to do with heaven or probabilities.
Own up, dude.
Actually all that is clear from her statement is that she knew God said it. If I tell you that "Failure to utilize OO implimentation syntax within our automation scripts will result in code spaghetti and the need to play code golf." and you repeat that to someone when they tell you maybe you shouldn't use OO implimentation, does that mean you understand what the implications are? Or does it simply mean that you are capable of parroting my warnings. Humans in context of this story were created not knowing death... so really what context would they have for judging this 'you will die' thing.
Also we are told that before eating the fruit, Adam and Eve were without knowledge of good and evil, so how bad can disobedience, mistrust or disloyalty be if you can't even comprehend the phrase "how bad" because it qualifies the amount of evil in an action.
In the end though the whole story is moot, given the other problems involving two creation accounts, talking snakes, and an omnipotent god having to ask people what they had done.
The Regular Expressions of Humanistic Jones: Where one software Engineer will show the world that God is nothing more than an undefined pointer.
you know well what i meen. i am talking about unpredictible future events. only who know the future, can reveal them. the bible has~ 6000 profecies, and half of them fullfilled. many in regard of jesus christ.
i sugest then to have a look at this site:
http://bibleprobe.com/nde.htm
There Are related many testimonials of people that had near death experiences, also people that had experiences while there was no electrical activity in the brain
Numerous people have had Near Death Experiences after their hearts stopped, or they have stopped breathing; and 10 seconds later the EEG (measure of brain electrical activity) - goes absolutely "flat". If so, how can any scientist say that this NDE is a conscious experience? Also, there have been numerous blind people (blind from birth) who reported Near Death Experiences. And for most of these their NDE's are "visual" experiences. How can these be? It is thought that over 10 million Americans have had Near Death Experiences. Why do "scientists" not study these more? These are not drug induced hallucinations. How can so many people report nearly the same details in their experience if they were due to drugs chemically acting on brain cells? Most people who undergo NDE's say that they are not "dream-like" events, but instead, very real and structured "visits". Also, for most people, an NDE is a "life changing" experience.
really ? i think you are plain wrong here.
i am providing testimonial evidence as well, which cannot be ignored.
sorry, but this is the way i post to make my point the most effective way.
Testimonial evidences cannot be undercut.
They can be explained, but no final proofs that spirit and soul are not separate elements of physical brain .
here some further reading from :
http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_explanation/cx9b.htm
Wilder Penfield, expressed his conclusions in a notable book, The Mystery of the Mind:
And so I come to my final reconsideration: I worked as a scientist trying to prove that the brain accounted for the mind and demonstrating as many brain-mechanisms as possible hoping to show how the brain did so. In presenting this monograph I do not begin with a conclusion and I do not end by making a final and unalterable one. Instead, I reconsider the present-day neurophysiological evidence on the basis of two hypotheses: (a) that man's being consists of one fundamental element, and (b) that it consists of two.... In the end I conclude that there is no good evidence, in spite of new methods, such as the employment of stimulating electrodes, the study of conscious patients and the analysis of epileptic attacks, that the brain alone can carry out the work that the mind does. I conclude that it is easier to rationalize man's being on the basis of two elements rather than on the basis of one....3
Prof. Glynn proceeds to expose the failures of various secular proposals for the evolution of consciousness. One of these, proposed by T.H. Huxley, Darwin's "Bulldog," was one we mentioned earlier in this chapter. It is that consciousness is an epiphenomenon, merely an incidental phenomenon that accompanied the evolution of the physical brain. Glynn explains James' response to this idea:
He pointed out that if mental events are epiphenomena they cannot influence behaviour. They will therefore be ineffective in Darwin's struggle for existence, and they will be ignored by natural selection. But if they are ignored by natural selection if they have no survival value why should we have evolved brains that make them possible?
So we see that in the ranks of secular scientists there is a not insignificant party of those who recognize that the enthusiasm of Dr. Crick and so many others for a monistic view of the mind-brain problem springs from philosophy, not from scientific evidence.
If consciousness is an illusion, who then is experiencing the illusion? And the absurdity? Are not the secularist neurophsiologists attempting to prove their own non-existence?
You should do some research on the nature of memory. Different people often have conflicting memories of the same events. It happens in court cases all the time.
If you really think testimonial evidence is the end-all-be-all of evidence, you should visit a psychiatric ward and interview some of the people there on their various experiences, then report back all the "facts" you have gathered.
-Triften
Firstly, please stop blatant copy and paste. There is nothing wrong with researching from as many websites as you want, but if you do not take the time to put that research into your own writing, you look lazy and will not be taken seriously.
Second:
You fell for it. You answer a question which I already knew the answer you gave would be false. I just exposed you as lying.
I deliberately loaded the question, and you decided to lie through your teeth to answer. Now I can tell you that what you have copied from this site is plain wrong and a lie. I goaded you into saying something I was already aware that was false, because:
1) You cannot attach an Electroencephelogram to an arrested patient. Also, patients prior to arrest do not have EEGs attached. It is not part of the array of machines for a patient unless they have epillespy, and that is not a trigger of NDE. A cardiac patient will certainly not have an EEG hooked up to them. And nor will a patient in arrest. I know this because a) I have studied neuroscience and b) I just checked with a trained medical professional. EEGs are never used for this purpose. Never. Ever. Also, EEGs are 150 years old, and not very accurate, which means that in neurobiology research, we prefer fNIRIS, NMR Spectroscopics, neuroangiogram and fMRI to record brain activity...care to guess how many people have NDE inside a Magnetic Resonance chamber? (Hint: None, plus the seizures would destroy the results anyway. Ionization magnetics are ultra-sensitive)
2) Even if you could, If an EEG goes flat,even for a moment it is called brain death. Unlike cardiac arrest, brain death is irreversible. Once ion flow to the brain is stopped, it cannot be reactivated. It is called death for a reason. But this is a near-death experience. NDE's are usually triggered by cardiac arrest. Brainwaves do not stop during arrest. Even if we could attach electrodes to an arrested patient, we would see this. Note, when you respond to this post, please, please, please do not confuse clinical death with brain death. Clinical death can in rare cases be reversed. Brain death cannot. Also, please do not confuse brain death with Permanent Vegetative State.
EEG is mostly research-based, not clinical-based. In medicine, it is most oft-used by anaesthesiologists, and in epillespy diagnosis. It is also used in carotid endarterectomy, but it is not used on arrested patients. Have you any idea how long it takes to set up an EEG? If a patient is arrested in the OR, and the staff are converging around them with crash cart and paddles, do you seriously think the doctors are going to start attaching electrodes to his head? Can you not think for yourself and realize this website you copied from is full of crap?
Since you just told me a blatant lie, how can I possibly trust the quality of your C+P?
Also, please do not copy from a book which has since been outdated. Penfield was brilliant, but this is 1970s stuff. Written before NMR spectroscopy, fMRI, NIfRS, and the whole arm of neurophenomenology.
Again, the other thing I reiterate is that even if we could attach an EEG to an arrested patient, no arrest can trigger brain-death unless the patient is permanently dead. Nerve cells are ultra-fastidious. Without action potential through them, even for a moment, they decay rapidly. THere is not a snowball's chance in hell that what you copied and pasted in true. I loaded the question in such a way that you would deliver a response which I already knew was a lie...and see how I have been vindicated?
What actually goes flat during arrest is not the EEG. You are confusing it with the EKG, the Electrocardiogram, which measures the electrical signals of the pulsing of the heart not the brain! The heart can be restarted by electricity. THe brain cannot. So if the EEG flatlines, the patient is AGMI. They won't come back. It won't be a Near-Death Experience, they just die. End of story. You cannot jump-start someone's brain.
Again, if you would actually read what I wrote on the matter, you would realize you are strawmanning the functionalist position. I suggest you study functionalism in more depth.
How can you possibly expect me to read and answer things you just copied and pasted while you refuse to read that which I wrote. How dishonest are you?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Most of the out of body experiences I know of have been documented on videotape by 300lb women from Arkansas on the SciFi channel.
No, read my sig. What i said, was that the fact that we have a choice, doesnt mean we have the right to "Choose" what we want. In other words, we have no free will.
We have a choice, but we cannot choose what we want. That is what having no free will is about.
Because the choice of vanillla was never there in the first place.
My argument is akin to saying, "If every dog jumps, does that mean they really wanted to jump?"
I'm infallible. I don't know why you can't remember that.
i read what you write, but you use many scientific terms, that i have no knowledge of, as i am not a med specialized in neuro medicine. I do not write many things of my own, as i cannot be on par with you regarding brain research etc. What i can do, is underline my faith, by showing evidence, that shows why i believe the way i do.
this site might be of interest for you.
people have near death experience while brain dead :
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.htmlBut...I just spent the last 500 words explaining why the notion of "brain dead" is false. Why would you redirect me to something which I just refuted without drafting the proper counterrefutation?
The term brain death makes reference to irreversible end to the activity of ion flow across action potentials in the brain. As I explained before, this cannot be restarted. We cannot do it. The body cannot do it either. If there was an ounce of truth to the claim of someone surviving genuine brain death instead of clinical death (the ceasing of electrical activity in the brain versus the stopping of the heart) it is a hoax. The brain's electrical wiring is billions and billions of times more complex. The heart can be jump-started essentially the same way as a car can becase it only has several nodes (and the electrical activity between the nodes generates the PQRST), while the brain has trillions of trillions.
On the other hand "brain dead" is an unscientific colloquial way of referring to Permanent Vegatative state. This is false because NMR and neuroangiogram have shown that a PVS brain is not dead, it is just that the centers of consciousness (the neocortex and its subsections) are heavily damaged.
You cannot equivocate the two terms.
You must adress my refutation of your claim before reiterating the same claim, before we can move on.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Lol, first you said we don't have a choice. Now you're saying we have a choice but we can't want things. And with the ice cream thing, you're saying we have a choice but we don't have a choice.
It's not sounding logically consistent.
You also agree that every dog jumps, which is parallel to saying everyone chooses, which in turn means dogs can jump, and people can choose, therefore jumping exists and choice exists.
Lol... I chose it, but I didn't want to. (?)
All I can guess is that maybe you are having a problem wording things.
i think we arrive at a road which ends, here. Of course, you can always claim : well, the person in question did not die in fact, only apparently, and of course i will not be able to answer you. The realm of the question is, if soul and spirit is immaterial, and separte of our brain, ore not. We should go one step further, and ask : beside we, humans, are there other phenomen's , that can bring us further , in a right direction? Here in brazil there is a religion with millions of adherent's ( which i disaproof as christian ) , name is spiritism. you might heard about it. There are many different religions all over the world with similar practices, like animism etc. people get possessed and a spirit takes control of the body and manifests itself thrue the person. How would you explain such phenomen ?
Tricky, aint it? The question of whether you actually do have a choice, when youre forced to choose one over the other. Well, thats my point. Is being forced to choose one over the other, really having a choice? Is it free will? Sure, youre given the choice, but is it really yours to choose?
Think of it like this. The boss gives you a choice between 2. He says "if you choose this one, i will give you a promotion. Choose the other, and i will fire you". Which would you be inclined to choose? The thing with god, goes even further than this. God, gives you two choises, but then denies you of one. Its like having a button to press for either choice, but the button for one of the choices cannot be seen anywhere.
I'm infallible. I don't know why you can't remember that.
I don't think it's tricky-- it's more of a semantics/definition issue. There's a difference between having two options and finding one of the options more appealing, or having no options. Choosing between two options is still a choice by definition. The cause of the choice doesn't make it a non-choice, even if we say one was forced to do so at gunpoint, it only means that you chose life over death. I consider it a choice because it involves observation and reasoning in order to make a decision. When something doesn't have a choice, it is like a leaf in the wind that just gets blown around, not making any observations or decisions whatsoever.
Of course, you can make the observation that our choices are limited by the observations we are allowed to make, or the knowledge we possess, or our ability to reason, which is where we run into the concept of free will and what free will means. What does it mean? If it means we have to be able to choose anything, such as the impossible (I would sure love to be able to transform into a giant, flying frozen waffle and attack criminals by zooming into them at high speeds-- OOF!) then we don't have free will. If free will simply means being able to choose among available options, then we do have free will. In this thread, free will is being discussed in terms of religion, which means we are focusing on whether a god forces us to do anything (not really us, but the characters in the bible) and how this god is or is not responsible for actions.
That's why it's really an issue of definition. When we agree on definitions, there should be less disagreement on the subject.
By the way, I believe that some robots/computers make choices just as we do. This is evident in video games that feature artificial intelligence, where the computer makes observations and then decides what to do (run, hide, attack, jump, heal, etc).
It is tricky. The issue of whether Surface freedom is infact true freedom, is a tough issue. There is a difference between having two options and finding one thats more appealing. However, that is not what i am saying is happening. Whats happening, is that you are being "forced" to choose one over hte other. The fact that you have the choice to choose, does not constitute free will.
Again, i implore you to read Brave New World, or if you are lazy, go on Sparknotes.
Its pretty obvious that the free will we are talking about, is the freedom to choose whatever choice is presented to us. Whether that be choosing to eat chocolate or vanilla, or choosing whether or not to jump infront of a train.
Not the exact choices. They are restricted by their programming. When was the last time you saw a Computer AI in a FPS, choose to simply throw down his gun, walk up to you, and dance infront of your gunpoint? Well, unless the programmer inserted that into his programming.
I'm infallible. I don't know why you can't remember that.
Are we agreeing on what constitutes a choice? I consider it a choice as long as observation and reasoning is involved. For that reason, I don't agree that limited knowledge or other such restrictions eliminate choice, nor do the observations made, whether that observation is, "Gee, I want to eat to the pineapple but if I don't eat the orange, he's going to kill me! Well, I want to live, therefore I'll just eat the orange!" or "I like the taste of chocolate more than vanilla, so I will eat the chocolate."
You are still free to choose among the available choices! I think what you are saying is, "What if I don't like the choice? What if I want the pineapple more than the orange, but this crazy fruit terrorist is threatening to kill me, so I'm gonna eat the pineapple instead?" It's still your choice. It just happens to coincide with another choice, meaning you are choosing between living and dying and eating pineapple or orange at the same time.
That's why I'm not reading the book. I think that if you are saying exactly what the book is saying, why bother reading it?
Angelobrazil, it seems that you've decided you don't want to learn and you don't care what people say, and you've made up your mind. Is this very far off the mark?
"Immaterial" is a basically meaningless word. Please read this: 'Supernatural' (and 'immaterial'
are broken concepts
People who think they are being possessed are either delusional or putting on a show. You really should interact with clinically delusional people more often and perhaps attend more magic shows. You'll see how our brains can be tricked into seeing things that aren't there.\
Please do some research on Occam's Razor. What is a more likely explanation of someone running around claiming that ghosts are talking to them: Ghosts really do exist in some way that we can't really interact with them OR that person is seeing things and might need professional psychiatric help.
People like to explain things as being sentient so this leads to people saying the sky "wants" to rain, and people invent rain gods.
-Triften
I constitute a choice, when more than one option is upheld. However, freedom of choice is a different matter altogether.
What im trying to say, is "What if i cant choose A over B? What if, for some reason, i am compelled to choose B over A? What if i feel like im going to rip out my heart before i ever get hte chance to choose A over B?"
This is the type of freedom i am talking about. Its not choice. youre being compelled to choose one over the other. This is why youve never had the choice to begin with. What if you knew you were going to kill yourself before you ever chose A over B, no matter how much you watned to choose A? What if, for some inexplicit reason, you just couldnt force yourself to choose B?
Again, you dont understand what im trying to say. And if youre too lazy to read the book, go read the summary on SparkNotes. And if youre still too lazy to do that, well, then frankly youre hopeless.
I'm infallible. I don't know why you can't remember that.
it is a common practice that people that have lost their children, ore a beloved parent, want to communicate with them , even death, and visit people , that say that they can communicate with spirits of people, that died. Normally these parents ask , that the spirit that communicates with them, gives a proof, that he is really the parent, which whoom they want to communicate with . I guess the tricky thing for you will be to answer, how these spirits have knowledge of happeinings and event, and reveal these things, occured a long time ago, that only the family members know, and not the medium, which incorporates the spirit ? he cannot cheat. otherwise these family members would not believe, that they actually are speaking with the spirit in question. We, that believe in the bible, have the answer. the bible itself relates that these practices happen already thousends of years, and god prohibits them.
Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in [a] the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. 13 You must be blameless before the LORD your God.you can search the net, and will find thousends of homepages who relate about these practices. just a example:
http://www.mattersofspirit.com/afterlife.html
just to disqualify these things as pure brain desease etc. wont bring any further, as these are well documented facts.
http://www.meta-religion.com/Paranormale/Skeptics/deconstructing_the_dead.htm
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Why are you referring me to a book? The book won't change anything. I'm responding successfully to all of your arguments, and that's all that matters. Your position changes with each post, from stating we have a choice as a fact but we don't have a choice (contradiction), to stating we don't have a choice, to stating we do have a choice but not "freedom of choice". If you are having difficulty figuring out what you're arguing, it is not then my responsibility to figure it out for you by reading the book you're attempting to mimic. I'm going to continue to respond to each of your arguments until you figure out what you're trying to say.
What if you can't choose A over B? Then A is not even an option. This does not constitute a choice, which by your own definition requires more than one option.
However, this is not the same as being compelled.
What if you're compelled to choose A over B? Did you just choose? Then you made a choice.
You need to fix your logic and/or your wording. If you are compelled to choose, you are making a choice. The fact that you can choose one over the other indicates that more than one option exists (your definition of a choice). Therefore, you have a choice.
1. More than one option exists;
2. A choice = more than one option, therefore
3. You have a choice.
If you don't like it, you need to go back and read your book and figure out what you're trying to say.
. . . from a Cormac McCarthy novel I read years ago.
In the story - (either from The Crossing or from All The Pretty Horses, sorry, can't remember which) - a priest and the protagonist address the issue of god's power. One of them says that 'if god is all that you claim to believe him to be, then he would need no witness.'
I am always very happy to remind my Jehovah's Witness family of that fact. Other evangelists must enjoy hearing it, too, I'm sure!
Like you said, Fateless7, we do not need people to represent the sun, because its existence is already self-evident. Not so with god's supposed existence, and the fact that there are so many different so-called "revelations" and so much dissention about him simply is "exactly what we would expect to see if there was no evidence for God."
The fact that many, many people choose to kill and/or die over a very idiotically superstitious concept is one of the most extraordinary tragedies of the human condition.
Do me a favor. Right at this moment, I want you to think of a conversation you had earlier today.
...
Now I want you to think of a conversation you plan/wish to have in the future.
...
Now I want you to think of a conversation you had when you were just a child.
...
Pretty easy to do, right? Every human mind has this ability. We can reenact conversations we've had, or we can act out conversations that have never existed.
Your mind also has another function that allows you to read subtle gestures of the body and face. If you were talking to someone you knew, you could tell just by looking at them if they were angry, sad, happy, nervous, etc. Sometimes, if you know them well enough, you can even predict exactly what they are about to say.
Knowing this, it's only reasonable to see how a person who has had a dream of a dead relative might want to read more into it than just a dream. It's easy to see how a person can create a sense of communication when no communication is actually taking place.
(borrowing from the recent Andy Thomson video)
Because the person "perceiving" the spirit is projecting their own knowledge onto it. It is a creation from their own psychology that has been hijacked by spiritual woo-woo.
No one is suggesting that they are purposely cheating or lying to themselves. They're simply perceiving something for what it is not.
Would you mind proving the veracity of the bible? I see no reason to accept it as truth. I see plenty of reason to see it as false.
So says the book whose veracity is in question.
That website is the exact opposite of proof.
Did you know that the human race and all of its governments are actually being controlled by a lizard-like alien race? You can't disqualify the belief in such a thing as being mere delusion since these this is a well-documented fact: http://www.truthism.com
Use scientific sources please. =)
Cases of these phenomenon are no doubt well-documented in that there have been lots of reported cases. That much I would accept.
But I don't believe it has ever been shown that these are true conversations with the actual undead.
It IS psychological.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
"Chemotaxis
-Neurophysiology and cellular transduction
-The Huxley-Hodgkin model
-Neurotransmission
-Electrophysiology and electrochemistry"
deludedgod - Thank you for suggesting research on these specifics, regarding OBEs.
Although we have gone rather off-topic, thanks to angelobrazil, I really do appreciate this very specific discussion of the OBE topic.
I've always assumed that near-death experience simply created some kind of brain trauma that makes people believe they were "out of body," but never came across any strongly specific discussions of it. I truly appreciate that you and others are taking the time to explain this here.
it is God that chooses how he want to reveal himself to us. He has choosen in first instance his word, the bible, that explains us who he is.
to believe that the universe, bend in time, space, and materia, came into existence from nothing, is not reasonable at all. from chaos , to order, always intelligence and information is needed.
you can ask where god would come from , then. to accept, that god lives in a higher dimension , and has no beginning, and no end, is much more rational. to accept that we are limite with our senses, and not able to understand everything, that makes sense.
it is a tragedy, but not god is to be blamed for that.
Yeah, I take my hat off to you. It can be very interesting, but also quite miserable slogging through neurophysiology and electrochemistry. Especially not fun is studying the Hodgkin-Huxley model, which is the basis of neuroelectrochemistry. You only have to remember a handful of equations but deriving them is so miserable and tiring. They are:
Vm=(-1/Cm)(Σ(i)Ii))
and the Three VGIC equations:
gn(Vm t)=gnΦαXβ
Φ(Vm t)=(1/τX)(X inf-X)
And there is one more but I don't fully remember it. Tentatively, I think it might be Φ(Vm t)=(1/τΦ)(X inf-X)
And then there are the gating equations for the membrane's very, very short span at constant electric charge. Please don't ask me about those because I definitely don't remember. It's been a while since I have thought about electrochem.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I can see God peeking out from behind a church pew, tapping a priest on the shoulder, and whispering, "Hey.... hey! Yeah... I'm God. Look, you gotta tell these people about me. I'm shy. Really shy." I'm surprised I haven't heard a theist use that excuse yet. God wants to have a relationship with you-- he's just shy! That's why he needs us to spread the word!
Thanks for the book quote! It's factual.
Lol... we should start a minstry to spread the truth of waffles just to show people how redundant it is to witness about something that actually has abundant evidence for its existance.
You're committing an internal contradiction: Omnipotence obviates necessity by definition. Any 'necessity' could only exist by the fiat of an omnipotent creator in the first place.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Actually, you committed the internal contradiction.
1. Omnipotence eliminates the possibility of necessity;
2. We then must conclude that necessity cannot exist for an omnipotent being, however
3. An omnipotent being can allow itself necessity;
4. 1 & 3 contradict each other.
Furthermore, the Christian god is self-contradictory in itself. I don't see what your point is by accusing me of "commiting internal contradictions". I may be demonstrating the self-contradictory nature of the Christian god, but I am not "committing" anything. One could simply observe that the Christian god wants things he cannot have, or becomes angry and jealous, all things that indicate he is clearly not omnipotent because he is unable to fulfill his own desires. It is possible to demonstrate the non-existance of such a god within a few sentences.
However, such a quick dismissal is often not as powerful an illustration (for theists) as something such as my original post.
You are showing a poor understanding of current scientific claims. You've also shown an unwillingness to learn about them, but I'll try to explain somewhat...
Big bang theory makes no claim that anything came into existence from nothing (Christianity does). It makes no claims about what happened "before" the big bang (if there was a before). In current physics models, matter/energy is eternal, never being created or destroyed.
This is called special pleading. "Everything needs a beginning... except god."
It is more rational to believe in a magical being than the idea that the universe always existed (in one form or another)?
If our senses are so limited, how can you know anything about god? How can you be so sure that you have factual information? You've claimed that personal experiences cannot be argued with, then you turn around and say that we have limited senses and can't understand everything?
Isn't he's supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent and knew everything that human beings would do before he was even supposed to have created us?
-Triften
i cite from:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/beginning.html
Although there are atheistic scientists who believe that the universe existed before the Big Bang, I must make it clear that they present no evidence for this belief, since none exists!Yes, absolutely, since we have infinitely more evidences that God exists, and that he is the origin of the universe, and all creation. information and intelligence is a spiritual element, not material. since these elements are needed to make the simplest cell, no brainless evolution is possible, a creator is a must.
we have limited senses to explore what exists outside of the created universe and is out of reach for our eyes, ears, feelings, etc. But we have the revelation of God true his word, the bible.
There God reveals himself to us. We can find him, if we open ourself and start to read and study the bible.
God cannot be blamed for bad things, people decide to do. wheter he decide to create the world, despite the fact he was knowing humanity would desobey him. Good things and love can happen only, when God makes free human beeings, with a free will, and the ability to make bad choices, whatever consequences it brings with it.
Verification?
Verification?
So... again, god is the only one truely responsible for what happens, as he chose to create this particular univewrse with full foreknowledge of the consequenses.
So? What does that have to do with Big Bang theory? There are Catholics who think that priests who molest children should just be moved to a different parish.
There is evidence for the big bang. You should try learning about it. You insist that everyone should read the Bible to learn of god (and many here have and aren't buying it) but you refuse to put the effort into learning about what you are trying to argue.
Please present evidence for god. Don't say the bible, because then you'd have to prove that the bible is true and if you say that it's the word of god, that's circular reasoning.
Please learn more about neuroscience. Intelligence comes from your brain. That's why brain damage can destroy that intelligence. That's why chemicals in your brain can affect your behavior.
Please learn more about information theory. Information is encoded by difference in energy levels. Energy is a real, material thing.
Please prove that the bible was written by god.
So, if I just believe it, then I'll believe it?
Why don't you open yourself to the truth of the Invisible Pink Unicorn? Or Allah? Or Zeus?
First question on this one: Do you claim that god is omniscient? (It's a simple yes or no.)
-Triften
So thermal transfer from water to a lower energy surrounding turning a drop of water into a snowflake is intelligent?
The Regular Expressions of Humanistic Jones: Where one software Engineer will show the world that God is nothing more than an undefined pointer.
How 'bout "the necessity of farting for Flatulence's glory"?