3 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds“.... I meant the idea that nature created itself. ...”
To Andrew Hamilton:
The definition is okay. It is like one of those in the dictionary.
And I did not mean for you to put forth the definition of "nature"
as a "hypothesis"; I meant the idea that nature created itself.
As far as I know, God created the heavens, the earth, and all
living things. The Holy Bible tells me so. And as far as I know,
th ...[text shortened]... . And by your definition, it
appears to me that "nature" is what God created.
RJHinds
But I did NOT say nature created itself nor do I believe that.
I just said in my previous post that:
“....for something to be “created”, one minimal requirement is that FIRST there has to be a point in time when it did NOT exist and THEN there has to be a point in time when it did exist. But, since there was no point in time when there existed “nothing” (including nature), logically, nature was never “created” because nature exists (by my definition of nature that most people would agree with) at ALL points in time and therefore there was no point in time when nature did NOT exist. ...”
so I clearly implied in the above the EXACT OPPOSITE! -I mean, I clearly imply that it is NOT true that “nature created itself” because I am clearly saying and have been repeatedly saying all the long that nature was NEVER “created”!
And that is not really a “theory” or “hypothesis” because it is true BY DEFINITION of the way I defined the word “nature”. If something is true by BY DEFINITION then it is not a hypothesis but rather is simply a deduction from the definition -I hope you can see the distinction. For example, it is not exactly a “hypothesis” that all circles have a circumference because all circles have a circumference because of the way “circle” is defined.
“...And by your definition, it appears to me that "nature" is what God created. ...”
No. By my definition, nature was never “created”. Read what I just said above.
Originally posted by twhiteheadTo twhitehead:
I didn't say 'liar', I said dishonest. Not quite the same thing.
I think it is dishonest to make claims regarding something you know nothing about, or something you could not possibly know. You said all science experiments have failed. How could you possibly know this?
If you had qualified it with "as far as I know", then it might be more understandable.
Why is it that when I make a statement that disagrees with your
world view, you think I should have to qualify it by adding the
statement "as far as I know" or else I'm being dishonest? Can't
we have an honest disagreement without having to qualify
everything with "as far as I know"? Do you require this of
everyone that disagrees with you, are is this just because I am a
Christian?
RJHinds
Originally posted by RJHinds“....God created everything physical
To Andrew Hamilton:
But according to the Holy Bible, God created everything physical
that exist, including time and all the natural laws.
You need to read the Holy Bible and get someone to help you
understand it.
RJHinds
that exist, ...”
that would be a logical contradiction according to my definition of nature which you have not (so far) disagreed with.
If you disagree with that definition then which part do you disagree with?
Remember, the definition was:
“...all that exists physically and which is not man-made and also excluding any so-called “supernatural” thing...” (my quote on page 19)
and that would logically contradict the idea that it was “created” because:
“....for something to be “created”, one minimal requirement is that FIRST there has to be a point in time when it did NOT exist and THEN there has to be a point in time when it did exist. But, since there was no point in time when there existed “nothing” (including nature), logically, nature was never “created” because nature exists (by my definition of nature that most people would agree with) at ALL points in time and therefore there was no point in time when nature did NOT exist. ...”
To Andrew Hamilton:
What I'm trying to tell you is that God is supernatural. He is
before "nature" and He will be after "nature". It was not possible
to tell time before God created the heavens and the earth, in so
doing all natural things (this includes all "nature"😉 began. So,
before God began His creation there was "nothing" and therefore,
"nature" did not exist. The only thing that existed before time was
the "supernatural" God.
RJHinds
Originally posted by RJHindsThis has nothing to do with world views or religion. You could not possibly know for sure that every science experiment in history has failed. If you do not qualify it with "as far as I know" then you are being dishonest. And no, that is not something we can have and honest disagreement about.
Why is it that when I make a statement that disagrees with your
world view, you think I should have to qualify it by adding the
statement "as far as I know" or else I'm being dishonest? Can't
we have an honest disagreement without having to qualify
everything with "as far as I know"? Do you require this of
everyone that disagrees with you, are is this just because I am a
Christian?
Originally posted by RJHindsThe concept of before time is illogical. Time cannot be created under the common understanding of the term 'creation'. There cannot have been a time when time did not exist.
To Andrew Hamilton:
What I'm trying to tell you is that God is supernatural. He is
before "nature" and He will be after "nature". It was not possible
to tell time before God created the heavens and the earth, in so
doing all natural things (this includes all "nature"😉 began. So,
before God began His creation there was "nothing" and therefore,
"nat ...[text shortened]... t. The only thing that existed before time was
the "supernatural" God.
RJHinds
Originally posted by twhiteheadJust visiting, and making some rounds among old friends, such as yourself. 🙂
The concept of before time is illogical. Time cannot be created under the common understanding of the term 'creation'. There cannot have been a time when time did not exist.
Before before
there was no was,
nor even an is—nor,
for that grammatical matter,
so much as a wisp of a wasn’t,
which just wasn’t “there”
before a before…
Hope you are well.
Originally posted by twhiteheadGod exists outside of time. Before the creation there was no time.
The concept of before time is illogical. Time cannot be created under the common understanding of the term 'creation'. There cannot have been a time when time did not exist.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
(Genesis 1:1 New American Standard Bible)
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHinds“....What I'm trying to tell you is that God is supernatural. He is
To Andrew Hamilton:
What I'm trying to tell you is that God is supernatural. He is
before "nature" and He will be after "nature". It was not possible
to tell time before God created the heavens and the earth, in so
doing all natural things (this includes all "nature"😉 began. So,
before God began His creation there was "nothing" and therefore,
"nat t. The only thing that existed before time was
the "supernatural" God.
RJHinds
before "nature" ...”
by my definition of “nature” that you (so far) have not disagreed with, there could be no “before” nature.
“...So, before God began His creation there was "nothing" ...”
again, by my definition of “nature” that you (so far) have not disagreed with, there could be no “before” nature and therefore there could not be “nothing” existing “before” nature because there was no “before” for there to be “nothing”.
“...The only thing that existed BEFORE TIME was ...” (my emphasis)
the term “BEFORE TIME” is a logical self-contradiction! If there was a “BEFORE TIME” then there was a time before time and therefore that beginning of time was also NOT the beginning of time!!! I hope you can see that, in logic, you cannot have BOTH P AND NOT P !
Originally posted by RJHindsdoes that supposed to relate to my last post?
To Andrew Hamilton:
"But the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God;
for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them,
because they are spiritually appraised." (1 Corinthians 2:14 NASB)
[From the Holy Bible - New American Standard Bible]
If so, am I “foolish” for asserting that:
“...the term “BEFORE TIME” is a logical self-contradiction! If there was a “BEFORE TIME” then there was a time before time and therefore that beginning of time was also NOT the beginning of time!!! I hope you can see that, in logic, you cannot have BOTH P AND NOT P ! ...”
and, if so, how so? I mean, exactly which part of that above deduction is “foolish” which you disagree with? Would you say you CAN have BOTH P AND NOT P ?
Does the Bible say it is “foolish” to deduce?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI have said many times you cannot use material apparatus to determine the spiritual.
“....What I'm trying to tell you is that God is supernatural. He is
before "nature" ...”
by my definition of “nature” that you (so far) have not disagreed with, there could be no “before” nature.
“...So, before God began His creation there was "nothing" ...”
again, by my definition of “nature” that you (so far) have not disagreed with, the ...[text shortened]... beginning of time!!! I hope you can see that, in logic, you cannot have BOTH P AND NOT P !
But you try and do it all the time, and it only creates confusion and error for yourself.
Your mundane material mind and intelligence ....is your material apparatus.
But you can purify your mundane material mind to the transcendental platform, and therefore it will no longer be material apparatus but then........ it will be transformed into spiritual apparatus.
But you are unwilling to do this..... because it requires you to live the spiritual life, and without living the spiritual life you will therefore remain unqualified to understand the spiritual, in any way shape or form.
Why do you do this to yourself........constantly attempt to understand the spiritual without the necessary qualifications required to do so.
Understanding God is simple to the truthful person, but while you discard truthfulness you will never comprehend spiritual affairs.
Stating that there is no design anywhere in the cosmos is the height of untruthfulness.
Starting with correcting this false assumption, will be the beginning of your path to being a truthful person.....do it immediately, and instantly you will become more truthful..