The First Ever Crime Has Just Been Committed In Space
I noticed this in relation to taking out fallen sinful nature with us into outer space.
Going to Mars will have these problems.
I am not saying don't go. I am saying we will take out sinful natures with us wherever we go unless we are transformed in Christ's salvation.
&ab_channel=TheInfographicsShow
@sonship saidThe more we explore the universe the more we will come to realize it contains no deity.
The First Ever Crime Has Just Been Committed In Space
I noticed this in relation to taking out fallen sinful nature with us into outer space.
Going to Mars will have these problems.
I am not saying don't go. I am saying we will take out sinful natures with us wherever we go unless we are transformed in Christ's salvation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82Ug7-_UlsQ&ab_channel=TheInfographicsShow
Anon
1 edit
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
lol.
Nonsense Anon.
I have a good idea for anyone who wants to get a Nobel Prize in astronomy.
I bet that the stars which seem randomnly strewn across the cosmos will one day be discovered to have specific order of some kind.
I would not be surprised if what looks random to us will one day be found to be
a ordering of stars related to each other according to a very complex order. Somebody who wants to look into that and get notoriety for the discover should take my hint and go work on it.
1 edit
The more we explore the universe the more we will come to realize it contains no deity.
I believe that the more we gain understanding of the universe the more evidence for its design will become apparent.
Having said that, the stronger some will react in rejection to the obvious.
I don't think any evidence will force people to believe in a Creator.
The strength to suppress the conscience and hold down the truth can be so strong as to resist subduing. This was true two millennia ago, today, and should the exploration exponentially increase in the next 1000 years, on into the future too.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven upon all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold down the truth in unrighteousness.
Because that which is known of God is manifest within them, for God manifested it to them.
For the invisible things of Him, both His eternal power and divine characteristics, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being perceived by the things made, so that they would be without excuse;
Because though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or thank Him, but rather became vain in their reasonings, and their heart, lacking understanding, was darkened." (Rom. 1:18-21)
1 edit
I do not mean thinking God is throwing thunderbolts from Mt. Olympus explains thunder. I don't think skepticism was born in the age of science. People have always been capable of being skeptical of religious beliefs.
Jesus told the crowd that they had the know-how to interpret the weather in a rather scientific way. But they failed to similarly interpret the moral peril of the day.
"And He said also to the crowds, When you see a cloud rising in the west, immediately you say that a shower is coming, and so it happens. And when you see a south wind blowing, you say that there will be scorching heat, and it happens.
Hypocrites, you know how to discern the face of the earth and of the sky. How is it then that you do not know how to discern this time? And why do you not judge also of yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:54-57)
It is right to seek God's forgiveness and His changing our love of sin by coming into our hearts.
@sonship saidThe effectiveness of the argument that there is design is limited by Mill’s challenge of the nature of evil and his observation that there exists some things which have no evident purpose. He believes that because natural evil, for example the plague or volcanoes, exist, then if the universe was designed it seems to be a faulty one. Therefore, if there is a designer the designer is morally flawed. Mill’s challenge is effective overall in challenging the existence of God, because it makes no sense that if God existed he would create a universe with natural evil, as he is supposed to be omni-benevolent and omnipotent so able to eliminate natural evil.The more we explore the universe the more we will come to realize it contains no deity.
I believe that the more we gain understanding of the universe the more evidence for its design will become apparent.
Having said that, the stronger some will react in rejection to the obvious.
I don't think any evidence will force people to believe in a Creator.
...[text shortened]... vain in their reasonings, and their heart, lacking understanding, was darkened." (Rom. 1:18-21)[/b]
https://peped.org/philosophicalinvestigations/essay-there-is-no-design-in-the-universe-discuss-32-40-marks/
1 edit
The effectiveness of the argument that there is design is limited by Mill’s challenge of the nature of evil and his observation that there exists some things which have no evident purpose.
I don't think the argument is strong enough. For the Bible speaks of sin and death entering into the world. We call this "the fall". Romans speaks of corruption.
The creation was subjected to vanity and corruption. The natural calamities are often indicative of the fall of the world and its subjection to corruption.
God designed many things to teach us even in this situation of an opposing will to God's will causing chaos in His creation. See how the fish in the lowest darkest place of the ocean seem more grotesque and monstrous?
So I think God preemptively overseas the creation so that even in the collapse, the fall, the subjection to corruption, His creation speaks to us of Himself.
He believes that because natural evil, for example the plague or volcanoes, exist, then if the universe was designed it seems to be a faulty one.
Dr. Hugh Ross of "Reasons To Believe" is good with showing how even some unfortunate things in nature have a positive purpose too. Moving of tectonic plates does cause earthquakes. Yet the maintenance of the planet to continue sustaining a good environment until Christ reigns is a by product of things like volcanoes and tectonic plate shifts and earthquakes.
Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist and astronomer has a Q&A Forum for skeptics only or in particular.
Look him up on Youtube. Dr. Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe.
This is not my endorsement necessarily of all of his teachings.
Therefore, if there is a designer the designer is morally flawed.
This argument doesn't seem a defeater to theism.
One must ask also is undetected goodness which escapes our notice for a time because we do not have a transcendent enough overview of all time.
Also a non-optimal design is still a design.
Also what appears to be a non-optimal design may one day be discovered to be better then we thought. Ie. Junk DNA may not be "junk" after all.
The idea of God's creatures having to educate God on moral goodness seems absurd. How can the effect be greater than the cause of the effect?
If there is no designing God the leap of "faith" that nothing blew up and produced everything and in such a finely calibrated way for life is too great of a leap for many. They don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
Mill’s challenge is effective overall in challenging the existence of God, because it makes no sense that if God existed he would create a universe with natural evil, as he is supposed to be omni-benevolent and omnipotent so able to eliminate natural evil.
Let's get a second opinion on that from William Lane Craig a Christian and trained philosopher.
William Lane Craig on the Problem of Evil and Suffering
&ab_channel=drcraigvideos
@sonship saidI don't watch your videos.
Mill’s challenge is effective overall in challenging the existence of God, because it makes no sense that if God existed he would create a universe with natural evil, as he is supposed to be omni-benevolent and omnipotent so able to eliminate natural evil.
Let's get a second opinion on that from William Lane Craig a Christian and trained philosopher.
[ ...[text shortened]... blem of Evil and Suffering[/b]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtx5GyP7i7w&ab_channel=drcraigvideos
If you have a valid argument, make it.
2 edits
@ghost-of-a-duke saidSo says the guy hiding behind "Mill's challenge" and says -
I don't watch your videos.
If you have a valid argument, make it.
Now Go To
https://peped.org/philosophicalinvestigations/essay-there-is-no-design-in-the-universe-discuss-32-40-marks/
@sonship saidFacepalm.
So says the guy hiding behind "Mill's challenge" and says -
Now Go To
https://peped.org/philosophicalinvestigations/essay-there-is-no-design-in-the-universe-discuss-32-40-marks/
I didn't say 'go there' I provided the source of what I had posted. (Something you frequently fail to do).
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYou did nothing that I didn't also do.
Facepalm.
I didn't say 'go there' I provided the source of what I had posted. (Something you frequently fail to do).
William Lane Craig on the Problem of Evil and Suffering
&ab_channel=drcraigvideos
Ie. Here's where you can hear more about what I said.
@sonship saidLet's see if you can identify the difference:
You did nothing that I didn't also do.
William Lane Craig on the Problem of Evil and Suffering
&ab_channel=drcraigvideos
Ie. Here's where you can hear more about what I said.
1. I post something and at the end of the post give the source of what I have posted. (You are not required to go to the source)
2. You provide a video link you expect people to click and watch.