This is the thread devoted to the debate that Mars Turner and Calvin have agreed to undertake after much discussion in this thread. The resolution to this debate is: Mars' version of Christianity is biblical sound and supported.


Mars' version of Christianity is the version he's presented in this thread.


The rules to the debate are as follows:


1. This is a civil debate - there will be no insult hurling.
2. This debate will last five rounds. Mars Turner will give the opening statement and Calvin will then give a rebuttal.
3. Unfamiliar terms will be defined upon request.
4. All sources will be cited properly.

Well my version of Christianity is; Rationalistic, Monistic, and believes in the Immanence of God.

Every aspect of my beliefs can either be proven necessarily and or sufficiently through empirical science. Equally every aspect of my beliefs can either be proven to be explicitly and or implicitly taught in the Bible.

(2 Timothy 3:16-17) "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."

"It is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth -- whenever its true meaning is understood. But I believe nobody will deny that it is often very abstruse, and may say things which are quite different from what its bare words signify." - Galileo Galilei

Reason must be used to understand anything. It is not enough to say "the bible says this and the bible says that" we must actually understand what it says. Those who disagree with this fundimental principle have no problem believing two contradictory ideas at the same time. In which case there is little point in proving the illogic of an idea they hold because it never took logic or reason for them to hold the belief in the first place.

"Rationalism may signify confidence in the intelligible, orderly character of the world and in the mind's ability to discern such order. ["For God is [a God], not of disorder..."(1 Corinthians 14:33)] It is opposed by irrationalism, a view that either denies meaning and coherence in reality or discredits the ability of reason to discern such coherence... In religion, rationalism is the view that recognizes as true only that content of faith that can be made to appeal to reason." - http://www.answers.com/rationalism Rationalism

I believe what you do not understand you truely do not know. Knowing of something and knowing it are two different things. My faith is based on what is known! Therefore my faith follows reason.

(Hebrews 11:1)

"Now faith is the substantiating of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." - Darby

"Now faith is the grounds of things, which are hoped for, and the euidence of things which are not seene." - Geneva

Please notice that without substantiation and evidence there is no faith. The Greek word here translated "faith" is pistis, it means; persuasion, credence, conviction, or simply belief. Our beliefs must be based of things which are proven!

Paul argues this in another way;

'What may be known about God is manifest because God made it manifest. His invisible [qualities], even his eternal power and Godship, are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made.' (Romans 1:19-20)

Paul's beliefs explicitly follow empirical science;

(Acts 17:28) "For by him we have life and move and exist, even as certain ones of the poets among YOU have said, ‘For we are also his progeny.’"

Please note that the apostle Paul here quotes and espouses the doctrine of God's Immanence from the text of Stoic philosophers;

(Epimenides' Cretica 'Cretan') "Thou livest and abidest forever, for in thee we live and move and have our being." Paul himself calls Epimenides a "prophet" (Titus 1:12).

(Cleanthes' Hymn to Zeus) "For we are Thy offspring, taking the image only of Thy voice, as many mortal things as live and move upon the earth."

(Aratus' Phænomena 'Natural Appearances') "For every street, every market-place is full of Zeus. Even the sea and the harbour are full of this deity. Everywhere everyone is indebted to Zeus. For we are indeed his offspring."

Consider Jeremiah, for he shares similar expressions as Aratus;

(Jeremiah 23:24) “Or can any man be concealed in places of concealment and I myself not see him?” is the utterance of Jehovah. “Is it not the heavens and the earth that I myself actually fill?” is the utterance of Jehovah.

Is the apostle Paul correct in his belief of an Immanent, Eternal, All-power-ful, Omnipresent, Being who is "clearly seen" and "manifest" to us by the physical realities we perceive?

Consider the material universe. It is generally held that the material universe (as we know it; with galaxies, stars and planetary systems) at one time did not exist.

Yet, the substance of what comprises the material universe (specifically energy) has been shown in experiments to be uncreatedable and indestructable. We have come to call this phenomenon the first Law of Physics; the law of conservation of energy.

Besides this, it logically follows that all things are made of something (once again, energy), and that nothing can be made from nothing. "Nothing" does not involve existence, it does not exist in reality. So what does exist, the substance of existence must necessarily be omnipresent. These observations also require that the substance of existence be uncreatable and indestructable.

The transformation of energy is power. All power involves the transformation of energy. Therefore energy is integrally all power-ful.

These facts alone make energy ubiquitous, eternal, and formable.

Now for there to exist an eternal, all powerful, omnipresent being such as God, either God is energy or God is co-eternal, co-all powerful, co-omnipresent with energy, which is absurd. Therefore God is energy and necessarily exists.

Another proof, consider the second law of physics;

Transformation of Energy (Power, Thought); Whenever an energy distribution is out of equilibrium a force (the gradient of a potential) exists which causes ordering of formations of energy that increase dissipation or minimize the force. Whenever an energy distribution is in equilibrium it causes all ordered formations of energy to transform toward a state of inert uniformity. http://www.entropylaw.com/

Max Planck said "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds... the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter."

From the second Law we see that every force is caused by a power, thought of God, continuous transformation of energy, which is able to maintain ordered formations of energy. Hence without the Mind of God holding matter together it would transform toward inert uniformity or in other words, dematerialize. Equally it could not have formed without the Intellect of God in the first place. And every ordered formation of matter is maintained, dissolved, or created by the same means from a higher ordered process.

Another proof, consider intelligent design;

The composition, geometry and arrangement of parts of objects intelligently designed do not form from insensate phenomena.

For example; a simple NOT complex; stop sign. The composition of a stop sign is usually some carbon steel with red and white paint. The geometry is a particularly thin sheet of uniform thickness in a perfect octagon.

Ask yourself this straightforward question; Can a stop sign form from insensate phenomena? For example; are there any volcanoes spewing out 2000 plus fereheight carbon steel in perfect geometries of thin sheet octagons? If so, is there any process that can place petro-chemical paints in unsmeared perfect shapes onto one of the objects sides?

The answer is no, it cannot form from any insensate phenomena we know of. Some nihilistic sophists would argue; it can form from insensate phenomena we have no knowledge of because we do not have absolute knowledge of all things. Pragmatically speaking, this level of criticism makes all beliefs unprovable assumptions because any belief can be countered from the ignorance of possibilities imagined. No matter how unrealistic. That sort of ignorance belongs to the idiocy hall of fame. Stop signs do not and never will form from insensate phenomena. It is as simple as that.

I have suffieciently proven that something can be intelligently designed. We did not arise from an acident of God's nature. For NO theory of macro evolution assessed through mathematical or computational biology has been substantiated. The likelihood of the formation of living organisms from insensate phenomena has been demonstrated to be grossly negligible. (see calculations and quotes in my blog called "intelligent design")

Nobel laureate Francis Crick, evolutionist and co-discoverer of the DNA structure, stated, "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, "

Intelligent design holds the statistical complement of macro evolution; In other words, we can say with certainty there is a Creator.

Jesus is the formost transformation of God (John 1),

Through Jesus the "master worker" all that we know of was created, first being the angels (grunt labor if you will), who subsequently took part in the creation of the material universe. "When the morning stars joyfully cried out together, And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?" (Job 38:7) (Proverbs 8:30)

The "holy spirit" is the angels (just as the "wicked spirit" is the demons),

(1 Corinthians 14:12) So also YOU yourselves, since YOU are zealously desirous of spirits, seek to abound in them for the upbuilding of the congregation.

(1 Corinthians 14:32) And spirits of prophets are subject to prophets

(Hebrews 1:14) Are they not all spirits for public service, sent forth to minister for those who are going to inherit salvation?

(Revelation 22:6) And he said to me: “These words are faithful and true; yes, Jehovah the God of the spirits of the prophets sent his angel forth to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place.

(2 Peter 1:21) For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.

I can show you a numorous scriptures that demonstrate the fact that angels do every single thing the "holy spirit" is said to do and that the quality or character term before or after the term spirit indicates the nature or purpose of the spirit(s) activity.

Our life is both materially as well as spiritually, sybiotic; That is we are all ONE together with God, Jesus, the angels, and even other material organisms.

We cannot materially live without the sybiotic organisms in our body. We share a similar existence with all other existing beings;

That is we are the material expression of God. What we create is through God and by God.

Who really created the Universe? God? Jesus? the angels?... The answer is we are all one. We are all just different modes and expression of the ONE God.

Just as God begot lots of stuff and Jesus, Jesus begot lots of stuff and angels, angels begot lots of stuff and humans, humans begot lots of stuff and computers?, computers begot lots of stuff and ?????.

Yet this is all the creation by God.

I am not willing to debate the following part; (because I haven't done enough research)

My latest studies are on prayer; scientically speaking prayer is a form of self-hypnosis. But I am desirous of learning how to access exterior manifest reality. I have already learned how to control individual cells, or groups of cells in my body to a small degree. I am wondering if exterior manifest reality can only be accessed through the angels in some sort of symbiotic communication.

(Genesis 1:21) "And God proceeded to create the dragons..."

The dragons or dinos existed before the flood and possibly some even after it; I do not believe dino blood cells, blood vessels, and connective tissue could last 70 MILLION years. A few thousand years, maybe.

Tyrannosaurus rex



(Genesis 6:1-5) "Now it came about that when men started to grow in numbers on the surface of the ground and daughters were born to them, then the sons of the [true] God began to notice the daughters of men, that they were good-looking; and they went taking wives for themselves, namely, all whom they chose. ...The fellers (those who cause others to fall down) proved to be in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of the [true] God continued to have relations with the daughters of men and they bore sons to them, they were the mighty ones who were of old, the men of fame. Consequently Jehovah saw that the badness of man was abundant in the earth and every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time."

The sons of the [true] God are not humans. (Job 1:6)

These angels had relations with women and produced mighty children. Those children caused others to fall down (murderous). It is for this reason Jehovah destroys the world of this time by flood.

All over the world from nearly every nation and people there are stories of a flood. Many ancient stories included humans that were children of the god's.

Now if these hybrid humans existed we would accordingly find their bones.

The children of the angels are the neanderthal; We existed before them, they have larger brain cavities, stronger muscles, they were canabolistic and very violent, the mtDNA demonstrates we did not or could not productively mate with them, nor did we 'evolve' from them. And pragmatically speaking we would have evolved to them because they were superior in every physical way. They all died off "some how" which is clearly explained by the flood;

Children of the angels



The Neanderthal skeleton, at left, is compared with a regular human skeleton. Source




(Genesis 7:11) "...in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened."
“Second month.” Following the Exodus from Egypt, when Jehovah gave the Israelites the sacred calendar, this became the eighth month, known as Bul, corresponding to the latter half of October and first half of November.

God destroyed the children of the angels on Novermber 1 by global flood. Hollows Eve, All saints day, and All souls day come from the original demonic commemoration of there childrens death. "many of these customs predate Christianity, going back to Celtic practices associated with Nov. 1... Witches and other evil spirits were believed to roam the earth on this evening, playing tricks on human... Bonfires were lit, offerings were made of dainty foods and sweets, and people would disguise themselves as one of the roaming spirits, to avoid demonic persecution." - Halloween


:)

Why is the sky blue?

Because its blueness makes it look blue.¹

And thus we have the only position that me and Mars agree on. That is, petitio prinipii, “begging the question” is invalid as an argument for the integrity of the Bible. One cannot simply quote 2 Timothy 3:16 to prove that the Bible is the Word of God. On these grounds the Book of Mormon, the Qur'an, and even the writings of Mary Baker Eddy can be proven true. Now I agree that Christians should be rational in their faith, for the Christian faith is supported by reason. The problem is that Mars seems to stress rationalism to the point that he would reject special revelation. God wants to reach the heart with His truth, but He will not bypass our minds as He does so. Does Mars allow for God's grace to play any part in man's salvation? A unbeliever can provide arguments for God, but there will always be room for the unbeliever to reject God. The theist can never persuade someone to believe in God, only God's grace can accomplish such deeds, for man in totally depraved.² The dead do not need advice they need to be born again by God.

Does Mars even have faith? If faith can be based solely on reason then it is no longer so, it's merely a consent caused by the mind. Surely Mars does not believe that he can understand everything about an infinite God. Finiteum non capax infinitum, “The finite cannot grasp the infinite.” God is an infinite being, we are not. We can have an apprehensive knowledge of God, but that knowledge cannot be comprehensive. We are not capable of participating in God infinity. God's infinity is “incommunicable, ” that is, God cannot make us gods. The second god would be by definition a creation. This does not leave us in the realm of what Mars posits as irrationalism, it simply places us in faith. Faith can never be based on reason, it can only be supported by it. Furthermore, just because we are incapable of understanding these aspects of God it does not follow that they are unreasonable, they are simply beyond our understanding.

I ask Mars to demonstrate through empirical science the miracles of the Bible. Moses parting the Red Sea, Jesus turning water into wine, the sun standing still, etc. Am I arguing that these happenings are irrational and that they go against the laws of nature? To quote The X-Files, “Nothing happens in contradiction to nature, only in contradiction to what we know of it.”³ I should hope that Mars will not abandon belief in these passages just because he cannot explain them.

Mars wrote:

Consider the material universe. It is generally held that the material universe (as we know it; with galaxies, stars and planetary systems) at one time did not exist. Yet, the substance of what comprises the material universe (specifically energy) has been shown in experiments to be uncreatedable and indestructable... Now for there to exist an eternal, all powerful, omnipresent being such as God, either God is energy or God is co-eternal, co-all powerful, co-omnipresent with energy, which is absurd. Therefore God is energy and necessarily exists.

First off, Mars' worldview is metaphysically indistinguishable from atheism. Both are one eternal self-contained system, Mars just so happens to want to throw some religious significance into it.

Second, science is based on observation, the statement that energy cannot cannot be created or destroyed is not based on observation. The First Law of Thermodynamics should say that, "As far as we can observe the amount of actual energy in the universe stays constant." Furthermore, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the amount of usable energy in the universe is decreasing. If this is so then the universe is running down and it must of, at one time, had a beginning.

Finally, creation is out of nothing.⁴ Ex nihilo nihil, “From nothing, nothing comes.” This simply means that something cannot be caused by nothing. Not that something cannot come after nothing. God is the sole source of creation, only God can create something from nothing. God is the universe's First Cause. How does Mars get around verses such as Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 11:3, and Genesis 1:1? Those verses clearly state that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Furthermore, the Hebrew here denotes bringing about something that is totally new, something that never existed before.⁵

Mars wrote some more:

That is we are all ONE together with God, Jesus, the angels, and even other material organisms... The answer is we are all one. We are all just different modes and expression of the ONE God.

What does Mars mean when he states we are all one? And why does he keep going on about created beings? The two seem contradictory, if we are really all one then God is finite and infinite at the same time. Nonsense. Would Mars posit that there really are no finite beings? If so then relationships become impossible and our fellowship and worship of God becomes meaningless. All I-thou and I-I relationships are reduced to I and then there can be no changing relation at all. If we are nothing more than different modes of God then we are not having an experience, God is. Thus, religious experience becomes impossible.

Mars wrote even more:

Just as God begot lots of stuff and Jesus, Jesus begot lots of stuff and angels, angels begot lots of stuff and humans, humans begot lots of stuff and computers?, computers begot lots of stuff and ?????.

As Hamlet asks, "What is a man?"⁶ In the Bible David defines man as the purpose, the pinnacle, of God's creation (Psalm 8). Mars seems to posit that we are nothing more than a link in a chain of creating. We have created computers and these computers will go on to make their own creation and so on. We are no longer the creatures that God created to bring Him glory. Furthermore, how would Mars address passages such as John 1:1; 8:58; 17:5; 1 Corinthians 10:4; Colossians 1:17; and Hebrews 13:8, for these all speak of Jesus as having eternal existence.

And Mars wrote:

The children of the angels are the neanderthal.... we did not or could not productively mate with them... yhey all died off "some how" which is clearly explained by the flood;

The sons of God, or sons of angels, show themselves to the Lord in Job 1:6 and 2:1. These same "sons" are addressed as seeing the foundations of the earth laid in Job 38:7. Quite odd for neanderthal to be around at that time. Furthermore, Genesis 6:4 clearly states that they did have sexual relations and even had offspring with women. Finally, these sons of God still receive mention after the flood. Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, and 1 and 2 Samuel all speak of them although they all seem to be in the land of Canaan. After the conquests of Moses, Joshua, and finally David into the land they are never spoken of again. The claim that the sons of angels were neandrathal seems rather contradictory to the Bible.

Quote the Mars:

(Genesis 1:21) "And God proceeded to create the great reptiles.." The dragons or dinos existed before the flood and possibly some even after it; I do not believe dino blood cells, blood vessels, and connective tissue could last 65 MILLION years. A few thousand, maybe.

The Hebrew used here is nephesh which refers to creatures that have a soul (reptiles are not included). Or at least most of the time it does, for there are cases such as Leviticus 11:46 where it refers to all living creatures (below man). Such is not the case with Genesis 1:21. ⁵ Dinosaurs receive no mention in the creation account, which makes sense once one realizes the purpose of the Bible; to provide man with God's plan of salvation. Something which Mars wants to replace with a scientific journal.

Mars and AiG are making huge leaps with these T Rex fossils. If this tissue was fresh it would not be that reddish color, fresh tissue and blood vessels are transparent. In the comparison of the T Rex femur to the ostrich they had to dye the ostrich tissue to achieve that coloring. They had to use proteolytic enzymes on the ostrich tissue as well to release the blood vessels, while on the T Rex they did not. This would show that the T Rex collagen had already degraded. When treated the tissue did return to a state similar to it's original condition which suggests that it was desiccated. It's really nothing more than lucky happenstance that the tissue was preserved.⁷

Young earth creationists love to jump to conclusions on findings like these while they ignore all opposing evidence. There hasn't even been any molecular studies on the tissue, as of March, at least, so it could be nothing more than new material that replaced the old over the years.⁷

------------------------------------

1. Geisler, Norman L. Come, Let us Reason. Baker, 1990 printing.

2. 1 Corinthians 2:14; John 1:12-13; John 6:44; Romans 9:16 ; Romans 3:11.

3. Chris Carter. The X-Files. Herrenvolk (4x01)

4. Lack of matter, energy, and all ten space-time dimensions of the universe.

5. There are two verbs used in Genesis for created, one is 'asa which means to produce, manufacture, or fabricate; and the other is bara. Bara only has one subject: God. It means to bring something into existence that is new, something that has never existed before. Bara is used three times in Genesis 1, once in verse 1 (matter), once in verse 21 (soul), and once in verse 27 (spirit). In verse 1 God brings into existence the entire physical universe: matter, energy, and whatever else it may contain. In verse 21 God creates soulish creatures (nephesh), these creatures exhibit yearnings, emotions, passions, and will. They are more than just bodies with intricate systems. Finally in verse 27 we see the final usage of bara, which refers to our spirit and our connection with God.

6. William Shakespeare. Hamlet. Act IV, Scene IV.

7. Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex.

Does Mars allow for God's grace to play any part in man's salvation? A unbeliever can provide arguments for God, but there will always be room for the unbeliever to reject God. The theist can never persuade someone to believe in God, only God's grace can accomplish such deeds, for man in totally depraved.2 The dead do not need advice they need to be born again by God.

(Acts 8:30-31) Philip ... said: “Do you actually know what you are reading?” He [the Ethiopian] said: “Really, how could I ever do so, unless someone guided me?”

It is true, it is by God's grace we have the opportunity to learn the truth. However, God uses his servants to share the truth.

(Romans 10:14-15) However, how will they call on him in whom they have not put faith? How, in turn, will they put faith in him of whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach? How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent forth? Just as it is written: “How comely are the feet of those who declare good news of good things!”

How can someone be born again without faith? How can someone have faith in something they have not heard? How will they hear without someone to teach them?

Faith can never be based on reason, it can only be supported by it.

If our beliefs are not based on reason, they need not be supported by reason.

Furthermore, just because we are incapable of understanding these aspects of God it does not follow that they are unreasonable, they are simply beyond our understanding.

What we do not understand we do not really know.

If you do not understand that God exists you do not know God exists. You are an atheist in disguise.

Nothing happens in contradiction to nature, only in contradiction to what we know of it.

If any transformation of energy does not follow from an insensate phenomena it requires intelligence to produce such a transformation. This follows from my proof of intelligent design.

First off, Mars' worldview is metaphysically indistinguishable from atheism. Both are one eternal self-contained system, Mars just so happens to want to throw some religious significance into it.

"In English, believers usually refer to the monotheistic god as "God". In many philosophical and/or esoteric interpretations of monotheism or henotheism, God is not thought of as a supernatural being — as a deity or god; rather, God becomes a reified philosophical category: the All, the One, the Ultimate, the Absolute Infinite, the Transcendent, the Divine Ground, Being or Existence itself, etc. For example, such views are typical of pantheism, panentheism, and religious monism. Attributing anthropomorphic characteristics to God may be regarded as idolatry, blasphemy, or symbolism. Some theists may not believe in, or may even deny, the existence of deities as supernatural beings, while maintaining a belief in god as so conceived. For example, the Protestant theologian Paul Tillich described God as the 'ground of Being', the 'power of Being', or as 'Being itself', and caused controversy by making the statement "God does not exist", resulting in him occasionally being labelled an atheist. Nevertheless, for Tillich, God is not 'a' being that exists among other beings, but is Being itself. For him, God does not 'exist'; God is the basis of Being, the metaphysical power by which Being triumphs over non-Being. Some atheists who deny the existence of deities as supernatural beings would also deny this and similar conceptions of God, or consider them incomprehensible." - http://www.answers.com/atheism&r=67

It is intresting to hear people say they worship God and at the same time claim to be atheists. At least many of us agree such a God as found in your irrational beliefs, does not exist.

science is based on observation, the statement that energy cannot cannot be created or destroyed is not based on observation. The First Law of Thermodynamics should say that, "As far as we can observe the amount of actual energy in the universe stays constant."

"I have found no better expression than 'religious' for confidence in the rational nature of reality, insofar as it is accessible to human reason. Whenever this feeling is absent, science degenerates into uninspired empiricism." - Einstein

You are arguing a nihilistic belief of reality. Essentially you are arguing that nothing can be proven.

Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the amount of usable energy in the universe is decreasing. If this is so then the universe is running down and it must of, at one time, had a beginning.

The second law does not state any such rubish.

The second law refers to the transformation of energy;

(2) Transformation of Energy (Power, Thought); Whenever an energy distribution is out of equilibrium a force (the gradient of a potential) exists which causes ordering of formations of energy that increase dissipation or minimize the force. Whenever an energy distribution is in equilibrium it causes all ordered formations of energy to transform toward a state of inert uniformity. http://www.entropylaw.com/

You are only thinking of half of the law.

Finally, creation is out of nothing.4 Ex nihilo nihil, “From nothing, nothing comes.”

(1) This simply means that something cannot be caused by nothing. Not that something cannot come after nothing.

God is the sole source of creation, only God can create something from nothing. God is the universe's First Cause. How does Mars get around verses such as Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 11:3, and Genesis 1:1? Those verses clearly state that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

(2) Furthermore, the Hebrew here denotes bringing about something that is totally new, something that never existed before.

(1) You must demonstrate that something can be made from nothing.

Forms of energy are not made of nothing! They are made of the substance of existence which is energy.

(2) Would you claim that matter has always existed? Could then the formation of the material universe from energy be called the creation of the material universe?

http://frank.mtsu.edu/~rbombard/RB/Spinoza/ethica1.html
PROP. XV. Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived.

Proof.--Besides God, no substance is granted or can be conceived (by Prop. xiv.), that is (by Def. iii.) nothing which is in itself and is conceived through itself. But modes (by Def. v.) can neither be, nor be conceived without substance; wherefore they can only be in the divine nature, and can only through it be conceived. But substances and modes form the sum total of existence (by Ax. i.), therefore, without God nothing can be, or be conceived. Q.E.D.

What does Mars mean when he states we are all one? And why does he keep going on about created beings? The two seem contradictory, if we are really all one then God is finite and infinite at the same time. Nonsense. Would Mars posit that there really are no finite beings?

Substance is infinite, forms thereof are finite.

In the Bible David defines man as the purpose, the pinnacle, of God's creation (Psalm 8).

It says no such thing.

John 1:1; 8:58; 17:5; 1 Corinthians 10:4; Colossians 1:17; and Hebrews 13:8, for these all speak of Jesus as having eternal existence.

(John 1:1) "In [the] beginning the Word was..."
Beginning of creation? What about before the beginning? Only the Father was?

Yes Jesus is "...the beginning of the creation by God." (Revelation 3:14)

(1) The sons of God, or sons of angels,

show themselves to the Lord in Job 1:6 and 2:1. These same "sons" are addressed as seeing the foundations of the earth laid in Job 38:7. Quite odd for neanderthal to be around at that time. Furthermore, Genesis 6:4 clearly states that they did have sexual relations and even had offspring with women.

(2) Finally, these sons of God still receive mention after the flood. Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, and 1 and 2 Samuel all speak of them although they all seem to be in the land of Canaan. After the conquests of Moses, Joshua, and finally David into the land they are never spoken of again. The claim that the sons of angels were neandrathal seems rather contradictory to the Bible.

This is a total mental fart;

(1) "sons of God" and "sons of angels" are NOT synonomous. The "sons of God" are the angels! However the sons of the angels are humanoid mighty ones!

(2) I am having a hard time not calling you names.

Nephilim means feller, or those who cause others to fall down. Anyone that is mighty and violent can be called a feller. However the children of the angels were destroyed in the flood. The fellers spoken of latter in the bible are never called children of the sons of God.

The Hebrew used here is nephesh which refers to creatures that have a soul (reptiles are not included). Or at least most of the time it does, for there are cases such as Leviticus 11:46 where it refers to all living creatures (below man). Such is not the case with Genesis 1:21. 5 Dinosaurs receive no mention in the creation account, which makes sense once one realizes the purpose of the Bible; to provide man with God's plan of salvation. Something which Mars wants to replace with a scientific journal.

Your giberish about nephesh was completely irrelevant. Then you preceed to contradict yourself.

The relevant phrase is gaw-dole' tan-neen' which in a sublinear is "the-great-ones" "the-monsters"; Both in Strong's and Brown-Driver-Briggs there is the word dragon for the expression tan-neen'.

Mars and AiG are making huge leaps with these T Rex fossils.

(1) If this tissue was fresh it would not be that reddish color, fresh tissue and blood vessels are transparent.

In the comparison of the T Rex femur to the ostrich they had to dye the ostrich tissue to achieve that coloring. They had to use proteolytic enzymes on the ostrich tissue as well to release the blood vessels, while on the T Rex they did not. This would show that the T Rex collagen had already degraded. When treated the tissue did return to a state similar to it's original condition which suggests that it was desiccated.

(2) It's really nothing more than lucky happenstance that the tissue was preserved.7

(1) Who is claiming it is fresh? That is called a stick man. Any creationist would claim it is atleast thousands of years old.

(2) Yes the blood cells, blood vessels, and connective tissue was amazingly preserved for 70 MILLION years. This is a perfect example of your kind of faith.


I leave you with this one verse;

"PROVE all things; hold fast that which is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

Couple questions to help me respond:

It is true, it is by God's grace we have the opportunity to learn the truth.

What did you mean by this? What is grace's role in the Christian's life? Is it God's will that men shall come to the unbeliever with the Truth? Is it God's regeneration of fallen man and his captivity to sin? What's your definition of grace?

You supplied verses that speak of teachers of Christian doctrine with this so it makes me think the former.

---------
I wrote:

First off, Mars' worldview is metaphysically indistinguishable from atheism. Both are one eternal self-contained system, Mars just so happens to want to throw some religious significance into it.

You responded:

"In English, believers usually refer to the monotheistic god as "God". In many philosophical and/or esoteric interpretations of monotheism or henotheism, God is not thought of as a supernatural being � as a deity or god; rather, God becomes a reified philosophical category: the All, the One, the Ultimate, the Absolute Infinite, the Transcendent, the Divine Ground, Being or Existence itself, etc. For example, such views are typical of pantheism, panentheism, and religious monism. Attributing anthropomorphic characteristics to God may be regarded as idolatry, blasphemy, or symbolism. Some theists may not believe in, or may even deny, the existence of deities as supernatural beings, while maintaining a belief in god as so conceived. For example, the Protestant theologian Paul Tillich described God as the 'ground of Being', the 'power of Being', or as 'Being itself', and caused controversy by making the statement "God does not exist", resulting in him occasionally being labelled an atheist. Nevertheless, for Tillich, God is not 'a' being that exists among other beings, but is Being itself. For him, God does not 'exist'; God is the basis of Being, the metaphysical power by which Being triumphs over non-Being. Some atheists who deny the existence of deities as supernatural beings would also deny this and similar conceptions of God, or consider them incomprehensible." - http://www.answers.com/atheism&r=67

It is intresting to hear people say they worship God and at the same time claim to be atheists. At least many of us agree such a God as found in your irrational beliefs, does not exist.

I have no clue what you ment by this. Can you explain, please.

------------------

Can you expand your opening that your Christianity is "monistic, and believes in the Immanence of God." I'm having a hard time distinguishing your beliefs from pantheism. Do you believe that God is in the universe, or do you believe that God is present in the universe, but not part of it? Do you hold that God is transcendent to the universe as well? Do you believe that matter is also God, just a transformation of energy?

----------

I asked:

What does Mars mean when he states we are all one? And why does he keep going on about created beings? The two seem contradictory, if we are really all one then God is finite and infinite at the same time. Nonsense. Would Mars posit that there really are no finite beings?

You responded:

Substance is infinite, forms thereof are finite.

I dont follow here either. If you believe that things are different you are thrown into pluralism. Can you expand?



Thanks.

What's your definition of grace?

I was looking in the dictionary; I think this is the meaning we are refering to.

A favor rendered by one who need not do so; indulgence.
A temporary immunity or exemption; a reprieve.

We are all sinners. We deserve death. God owes us nothing. But because of God's grace we now are given an oppertunity to draw close to him.

Is it God's will that men shall come to the unbeliever with the Truth?

(Matthew 28:19-20) Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, ... teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded YOU...”

I said;

It is intresting to hear people say they worship God and at the same time claim to be atheists. At least many of us agree such a God as found in your irrational beliefs, does not exist.

you said;

I have no clue what you ment by this. Can you explain, please.

For example; An infinite being does not have a body.

"For all who have in anywise reflected on the divine nature deny that God has a body. Of this they find excellent proof in the fact that we understand by body a definite quantity, so long, so broad, so deep, bounded by a certain shape, and it is the height of absurdity to predicate such a thing of God, a being absolutely infinite." Spinoza XV of God.

I found this in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; pantheism
I think it is a relevant read for what we are discussing. Beware it is comprehensive.

Some atheists claim to be pantheists.

The definition of God is; "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions."

Pantheism means "all is God, or God is all". No matter how you splice it you cannot be an atheist if you are a pantheist, no matter how many fools try to argue otherwise.

Can you expand your opening that your Christianity is "monistic, and believes in the Immanence of God." I'm having a hard time distinguishing your beliefs from pantheism. Do you believe that God is in the universe, or do you believe that God is present in the universe, but not part of it? Do you hold that God is transcendent to the universe as well? Do you believe that matter is also God, just a transformation of energy?

I believe God is energy. There is energy that has form, and there is energy that has no form. The energy that has form was originally formed from energy that has no form. The genesis of the formations of energy is the beginning of creation.

Matter, alpha, beta, gamma, x, ultraviolet, light, infred. etc... are all forms of energy. Space is energy which has no form.

All forms of energy have inertial mass and are limited by the speed of light. The unformed energy is like an elastic fluid that is formable and which communicates it's essense instantainiously. For example gravity is instantainious, while the fastest any form of energy can be communicated is the speed of light.

I am sure it will be a religious view that finally finds the Unified theory of physics. Heck it was religious views that found every fundimental understanding of physics so far....

I do not believe we have been able to percieve all forms of energy so far. Nor do I believe we have been able to percieve intelligent beings of such formations of energy (angels). Unless when it is that they transform into forms we can percieve.

If transcendence means that there is unformed energy that exists then yes I believe in it. Infact I believe it is impossible for us to exist without God's transcendent quality if that is how I may explicitly interprete it.

I said;
Substance is infinite, forms thereof are finite.

you said;

I dont follow here either. If you believe that things are different you are thrown into pluralism. Can you expand?

I believe in monism of substance. Plurality of form is fine with me.

First off, I made a little mistake. I could have sworn that this debate was on if Mars' version of Christianity was rational. Alas, it's not, it's on if Mars' version is Biblical. That'll teach me to sub in a debate without reading the fine print. With that being said, I apologize about the sudden changing of gears in a lot of my arguments. Furthermore, after conversing with Mars I have come to realize that he is a pantheist among other things, so I shall be bringing in new arguments. His posts are not very clear and he speaks in riddles. I have also abandoned the essay like format due the roller coaster fashion of Mars' posts, this thing whips you all over the place.

Mars wrote:

(Acts 8:30-31) Philip ... said: ?Do you actually know what you are reading?? He [the Ethiopian] said: ?Really, how could I ever do so, unless someone guided me??

It is true, it is by God's grace we have the opportunity to learn the truth. However, God uses his servants to share the truth.

(Romans 10:14-15) However, how will they call on him in whom they have not put faith? How, in turn, will they put faith in him of whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach? How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent forth? Just as it is written: ?How comely are the feet of those who declare good news of good things!?

How can someone be born again without faith? How can someone have faith in something they have not heard? How will they hear without someone to teach them?

I asked:

What did you mean by this? What is grace's role in the Christian's life? Is it God's will that men shall come to the unbeliever with the Truth? Is it God's regeneration of fallen man and his captivity to sin? What's your definition of grace?

You supplied verses that speak of teachers of Christian doctrine with this so it makes me think the former.

You responded:

I was looking in the dictionary; I think this is the meaning we are refering to.

A favor rendered by one who need not do so; indulgence.
A temporary immunity or exemption; a reprieve.

We are all sinners. We deserve death. God owes us nothing. But because of God's grace we now are given an oppertunity to draw close to him.

(Matthew 28:19-20) Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, ... teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded YOU...”

You seem to be confused on God's grace, your verses have nothing to do with it. Fallen man is completely helpless in accepting Christ. Like I stated before you seem to posit that man is capable of proving that God exists in the hearts of men. Man's salvation and conviction that he is a sinner rests in God's grace. No syllogism, argument, or proof that you provide will lead a skeptic to believe. “We should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises from the dead” (2 Corinthians 1:9).

Ephesians 2:1-5 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

The day Adam and Eve ate from the tree they died (Genesis 2:17). From that time on man could not know the things of the Spirit of God, these things “are foolish to him”, and “man cannot know them” (1 Corinthians 2:14). That is, fallen man lacks the power of spiritual discernment, becsuse his reason is blinded. In this fallen condition man is a disciple of sin; man is spiritually dead. This condition is part of man's nature and it is beyond his will to change it. Man does not possess the ability to regenerate himself, just like “the Ethiopian cannot change his skin nor the leopard his spots, ” for ” we cannot do good, we are accustomed to doing evil” (Jeremiah 13:23). When Jesus was talking to the Pharisees in John 8 they were unable to understand Him. They accused Him of being demon possessed, only Jesus' disciples could see the truth. Only he who “is born anew can see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3).

I ask you again Mars. Do you leave any room for God's grace, or does all the credit go into your teachings and “proofs?” It is true that God uses us to evangelize but it's not our teachings that save our fellow man, it's God's efficacious grace. We are born again not by man's will, but God's (John 1:12-13).

Moreover, where does your wisdom lie Mars? You are so confident of your intellect, but should these matters be dependent on yourself? Greg Bahnsen states that:

[T]he Bible teaches that our convictions are not to be based upon human wisdom! Human wisdom isn't always wrong; sometimes people used their intellect and their independent ability to research, and find facts and come to truths which are very valuable. The problem is not that human wisdom is always wrong. The problem is that human wisdom is (1) fallible, and (2) not a sufficient foundation for believing anything about God. Because only God is adequate to witness to Himself!

So then our convictions should not be based in our own wisdom. Our faith is to be built upon God's revelation.

1 Corinthians 2:4-5 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.

NO AMOUNT OF HUMAN RATIONAL WILL LEAD ONE TO GOD, we are blind to the truth without God's call and the Holy Spirit's convictions.

Mars wrote:

If our beliefs are not based on reason, they need not be supported by reason.

What we do not understand we do not really know. If you do not understand that God exists you do not know God exists. You are an atheist in disguise.

{{[I leave you with this one verse;"PROVE all things; hold fast that which is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21)]

You are arguing a nihilistic belief of reality. Essentially you are arguing that nothing can be proven.}}-These were moved from your last response.

As can be done with most off Mars' quotations of Scripture you can simply read the surrounding passage and make a quick trip to your friendly internet lexicon.

1 Thessalonians 5:20-22 Do not put out the Spirit's fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.

Prove (dokimazo):

1) to test, examine, prove, scrutinize (to see whether a thing is genuine or not), as metals
2) to recognize as genuine after examination, to approve

It seems clear to me that this verse is demonstrating that we should not accept the words of those who claim to be of God until we examine them against the Word of God. For the Bereans “examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11). The Word of God, or Scripture is “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). This allows us to be on guard against all false teachings such as yours.

Prove all things? Consider the following from Aquinas why some aspects of faith should be accepted without proof and/or reason:

1. The object of spiritual understanding is deep and subtle, far removed from sense perception.
2. Human understanding is weak as it fights through these issues.
3. A number of things are needed for conclusive spiritual proof. It takes time to discern them.
4. Some people are disinclined to rigorous philosophical investigation.
5. It is necessary to engage in other occupations besides philosophy and science to
provide the necessities of life (On Truth, 14.10, reply).

”If it were necessary to use a strict demonstration as the only way to reach knowledge of the things we must know about God, very few could ever construct such a demonstration and even these could do it only after a long time.”

1. Few possess the knowledge of God, some do not have the disposition for philosophical study, and others do not have the time or are indolent.
2. Time is required to find the truth. This truth is very profound, and there are many
things that must be presupposed. During youth the soul is distracted by “the various
movements of the passions.”
3. It is difficult to sort out what is false in the intellect. Our judgment is weak in sorting
true from false concepts. Even in demonstrated propositions there is a mingling of
false.

“That is why it was necessary that the unshakable certitude and pure truth concerning divine things should be presented to men by way of faith” (Gentiles, 1.4, 2-5).

Furthermore, from stictly empirical point it is possible (though highly improbable) that the events in the Bible never took place. Our commitment should not be proportional to the evidence. There are aspects of faith that go above reason such as the Trinity, God existing without a body, how God can be transcendent and immanent, free will and predestination, Christ having two natures, miracles (all of which the Bible clearly teaches ;) ). Once again what good are these things without God's grace? They are of nothing, you are positing man's intellect as ground of salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9). If we are to take your argument out to its logical conclusion we would all be nihilists. I can believe in gravity without knowing g=9.8m/s², Newton's law of universal gravitation, or Einstein's theory of general relativity. We do not understand everything about the Lord, for many things remain a secret for Him (Deuteronomy 29:29). His ways our not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9). Only God's knowledge is indubitable, not ours.

In spiritual matters the Holy Spirit bears witness in our heart, for “we accept man's testimony but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart” (1 John 5:8-10). I would hope that you place your assurance in the Spirit's witness. Instead you seem to concentrate on finding your inner powers, your divine potential, you are seeking divine revelation in means other than Jesus Christ.


Mars wrote:

If any transformation of energy does not follow from an insensate phenomena it requires intelligence to produce such a transformation. This follows from my proof of intelligent design.

Mars you seemed to have missed my point again, I don't know what this has anything to do with what I just asked. One of the first things that you proclaimed right out of the gate was that, 'Every aspect of [your] beliefs can either be proven necessarily and or sufficiently through empirical science.' I asked you to show empirically the miracles of the Bible. Can you do so? And remember Mars, we do not understand everything about the Lord, for many things remain a secret for Him (Deuteronomy 29:29). His ways our not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9).

More so, if you are a pantheist then how do you account for miracles? There can be no supernatural events in your world, because God is the universe. So Mars, here we have miracles as a natural mechanism in our universe, this mechanism is therefore objective and able to be known. What is it? How does it work? How does it think without a brain? How does it talk? And so forth.


Mars wrote:

It is intresting to hear people say they worship God and at the same time claim to be atheists. At least many of us agree such a God as found in your irrational beliefs, does not exist.

I asked:

I have no clue what you meant by this. Can you explain, please.

You responded:

"For all who have in anywise reflected on the divine nature deny that God has a body. Of this they find excellent proof in the fact that we understand by body a definite quantity, so long, so broad, so deep, bounded by a certain shape, and it is the height of absurdity to predicate such a thing of God, a being absolutely infinite." Spinoza XV of God.

Some atheists claim to be pantheists.

The definition of God is; "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions."

Pantheism means "all is God, or God is all". No matter how you splice it you cannot be an atheist if you are a pantheist, no matter how many fools try to argue otherwise.

I still have no idea what this has to do with what I originally said, I still posit that your 'worldview is metaphysically indistinguishable from atheism. Both are one eternal self-contained system, you just so happen to want to throw some religious significance into it.'

What doctrines of Reformed Theology do you hold as irrational? Can you explain why you hold them as such?

(1) You must demonstrate that something can be made from nothing.

Forms of energy are not made of nothing! They are made of the substance of existence which is energy.

(2) Would you claim that matter has always existed? Could then the formation of the material universe from energy be called the creation of the material universe?

http://frank.mtsu.edu/~rbombard/RB/Spinoza/ethica1.html
PROP. XV. Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived.

Proof.--Besides God, no substance is granted or can be conceived (by Prop. xiv.), that is (by Def. iii.) nothing which is in itself and is conceived through itself. But modes (by Def. v.) can neither be, nor be conceived without substance; wherefore they can only be in the divine nature, and can only through it be conceived. But substances and modes form the sum total of existence (by Ax. i.), therefore, without God nothing can be, or be conceived. Q.E.D.

I notice that you never addressed my verses, I do not care if you throw every argument written by Spinoza (although, I don't know what these have to do with anything) at me. How God created the physical universe is beyond me. This debate is on if your view is Biblical, and the Bible strongly posits that creation was ex nihilo, or out of nothing. Like I stated before, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). John 4:24 posits that, “God is spirit, ” and 1 Timothy 1:17 declares that God is invisible. Furthermore, according to John 1:18, “no one has ever seen God.” So then, God is both invisible and immaterial. The universe is capable of being handled and seen, it's tangible and physical (Hebrews 11:3). You are attempting to place God under a microscope, something which we cannot do. Furthermore, if the universe was created out of energy then Hebrews 11:3 could not be true, unless you hold that God can change, which I will touch on later. Therefore, creation cannot be ex Deo (see below) and God cannot be energy, for if He was then it would contradict the passages above.

Continuing on the theme of ex Deo, that is, matter was created out of God we have more problems. If ex Deo was true then it would not be a sin to worship the creation rather that the Creator as Romans 1:25 and Exodus 20:4 proclaim. The universe is different from God just as a potter is different to his clay (Romans 9:20-21). Picasso's creative mind is portrayed in his art, but that art is not part of Picasso. Furthermore, creation cannot be out of God's substance because God is eternal while his creation is not. Whatever is created goes through a change and God cannot change. Don t believe me? Let's ask God. Yo, God! Do you like, change and stuff?? “I the LORD do not change!” (Malachi 3:6) Well crap. I don't know about you Mars, but I wouldn't want to mess with God. What? What's that you say? God was confused. Hmm... maybe so. Let's check out Scripture. I'm just gonna open to a page and read the first thing I see. Ready? (Hebrews 1:10-12) “They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end." Hmmm, I cant argue with that. Can you Mars? Subsequently, God cannot be energy, nor could the creation have been ex Deo.

Another issue here if you are arguing that God is energy, you are saying that He is part of the universe. Do you hold that God is beyond the universe, that he is transcendent? It seems to me that when you say immanence of God you mean that God is the world, I would hold that God is within or present to the entire universe, but he is not a part of it. He is the Creator and we are the creation. The entire heavens cannot contain Him (1 Kings 8:27), for He is higher than the heavens (Job 11:7-8; Psalm 8:1, 57:5). God is “over all” (Ephesians 4:6) and “before all” Colissians (1:17). Thus, God cannot be energy.

Moreover, we are able to change energy into matter. Are you suggesting that we have power over God and that we can force Him to create? Your God is at its creatures beck and call, your God has lost the battle of the tower of Babel; man's scientific endeavors have risen above God. Not only did we succeed at fulfilling Satan's lie, that is, we can be our own god, but we have become God's god! Ergo, God cannot be energy.

What's more is that if energy is still being converted into matter then we have yet another contradiction in the Bible. Looking at Genesis we see that each of the first six creation days are marked with evening and morning, that is an ending and a beginning. The seventh day, however, received no such indication. This would indicate that God is still in His rest. Further proof can be seen in Hebrews 4 which talks about us striving to “enter his rest, ” which draws from Psalm 95:11 stating that some shall “never enter [His] rest.” Look at John 5:16-18 where Jesus defended His healing stating that even though His Father is resting in creating that He still continues to work to this day. And so, God cannot be energy.

In addition, even you stated that “all forms of energy... are limited by the speed of light.” Are you really stating that God is governed by other laws? For if there is a law give above God, natural or not, then He is no longer God, He is no longer the final authority. The Creator has lost control to His creation. How do you expect God to rid us of evil if He cant even break the natural laws that He created? Also, is God subject to entropy? Shall God wind away to “nothing” one of these days? Therefore, God cannot be energy.

Additionally, if God is energy, and the universe was created ex Deo then you have a huge problem with hell. Between heaven and hell “great chasm has been fixed” (Luke 16:26), no one can pass over from one side to the other. Hell is like a ”wandering star” (Jude 13), ” a ”waterless cloud” (Jude 12), a ”perpetually burning dump” (Mark 9:48), a “bottomless pit” (Revelation 20:3) an “everlasting prison”(1 Peter 3:19), it's like being “thrown outside, into the darkness” forever (Matthew 8:12). Hell is complete separation from God, hell is completely in the opposite way from God (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9; cf Matthew 25:41). How can God make Himself not God, how can He rip off a chunk of His own “body” and cast it out from Him for all eternity. What? What's that? You hold that those lost to sin are annihilated? Really? I thought that energy (God) could not be created nor destroyed? Uh-ohs! Consequently, God cannot be energy by your own standards!



I asked:

What does Mars mean when he states we are all one? And why does he keep going on about created beings? The two seem contradictory, if we are really all one then God is finite and infinite at the same time. Nonsense. Would Mars posit that there really are no finite beings?

You said:

Substance is infinite, forms thereof are finite.

I interrogated:

If you believe that things are different you are thrown into pluralism. Can you expand?

You responded:

I believe in monism of substance. Plurality of form is fine with me.

I am still really confused here. You keep claiming that you are a monist but then you state that things differ by relative non-being (at least, that's what I am able to decipher). That all differentiation is by negation, which is not monism. A sculptor would “differentiate” a statue from the stone by chiseling away or negating everything that is not the statue. Regardless, this ultimately leads you right back into monism, for if things only differed by non-being then things would not differ at all, hence everything would be one. Therefore, 'All I-thou and I-I relationships are reduced to I and then there can be no changing relation at all. If we are nothing more than different modes of God then we are not having an experience, God is. Thus, religious experience and relationships become impossible.'

IF YOU HOLD THAT YOU ARE A MONIST YOU HAVE NO GROUND TO ACCOUNT FOR RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE, OR GOD/CREATURE DIFFERENTIATION.

I noticed that you used Acts 17:28 to state that Paul believed in a pantheistic worldview. Looking at Acts 17:24 we see that Paul is referring to a “God who made the world and everything in it.” You believe that God is the world and everything in it. This obviously destroys all attempts to argue that Paul was a pantheist. Paul is simply saying that we have our being “in Him, ” not that we are in fact God. God is the originating (Colossians 1:17) Cause, and “sustaining” (Hebrews 1:3) Cause of all thing. Moreover, Paul was an orthodox Jew, a strict monotheist. He believed that God from which “all things came and for whom we live” (Corinthians 8:4).

Furthermore, how do you account for evil? If God is all then there can be no such thing. How does evil arise from a God that is necessarily good? Out of us comes “come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander” (Matthew 15:19). Would you argue that evil is illusory? If evil is not real then where does this illusion of it come from? It seems you have just destroyed morality.

Mars wrote:

[Psalm 8] says no such thing.

Psalm 8:4-9 What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet: all flocks and herds, and the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas. O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!

Please explain this Psalm to me Mars.

Furthermore, we were created “in God's own image” (Genesis 1:27), “in the likeness of God” (Genesis 5:1), God made us “upright” (Eccl. 7:29), we are the ”glory of God” (1 Cor 11:7). We share God's intellect, we are above the ”unreasoning animals” (Jude 10; Job 35:11), we can be ”renewed in knowledge in the image of the Creator” (Col 3:10). We are commanded to to ”be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48) and to “be holy, because He is holy” (Leviticus 11:45). God commanded that , ”whoever sheds the blood of man, by blood shall his blood be shed” (Genesis 9:6). Human life is sacred, and should be protected. To go against this is to make an attack on God. We are called to represent God, for we reproduce and reign for God here on earth (Genesis 1:28). God expects us to be morally responsible for Him as well. God gave us rules to follow (Genesis 2:16-17) and He holds us accountable for our actions. We have a huge responsibility on our shoulders and everything that we do should be for the Lord. We are called to ”honor God with our bodies” (1 Cor 6:20), and ”do everything for the glory of God” (1 Cor 10:31). Therefore we are the pinnacle of God's earthly creation.

You posit that God created us and we created computers. These are not the same types of creation. God brought us and the material out of nothing, out of something that never existed before. We created computers out of preexisting materials. We did not give them a soul, or spirit, or anything else that has never existed before.

John 1:1; 8:58; 17:5; 1 Corinthians 10:4; Colossians 1:17; and Hebrews 13:8, for these all speak of Jesus as having eternal existence.
(John 1:1) "In [the] beginning the Word was..."
Beginning of creation? What about before the beginning? Only the Father was?

Yes Jesus is "...the beginning of the creation by God." (Revelation 3:14)

What was before the beginning? This is a nonsense question. If there was something before the beginning then that beginning was not really so. It's wrong to think of creation in time, for there was no time “before” time. Time began when God began the changing process of this world. Mars, where was the man when he jumped off the bridge?

I would like everyone to note a continuing pattern in Mars' responses. He never really addresses the Scripture he just continues to rattle off verses and arguments that “support” his position. I am going to ask again for Mars to explain these verses that speak of Christ's eternal existence.

As for Revelations 3:14, the Greek here is archer signifies the one who was source of all creation, or the architect of all creation. Note Revelations 21:4-6 , it uses the same exact term. Shall we also believe that the Father is a creation?

Mars wrote:

This is a total mental fart;

(1) "sons of God" and "sons of angels" are NOT synonomous. The "sons of God" are the angels! However the sons of the angels are humanoid mighty ones!

Nephilim means feller, or those who cause others to fall down. Anyone that is mighty and violent can be called a feller. However the children of the angels were destroyed in the flood. The fellers spoken of latter in the bible are never called children of the sons of God.

Alright, I completely misread what you wrote and I conceed that yes, I did have a “total mental fart.” I quickly call mulligan and hope to go again. I know this is a “formal” debate so if you want to take the score here, then go ahead.

The Nephilim go by many names, including Rephiam (or sons of Rapha), Anakites, and Anakim, they are also referred to as “the giants.” Goliath, a giant who stood over nine feet was a descendent of Rapha, indicating that we could reproduce with the Nephilim. Furthermore, Numbers 13 describe the descendents of Anak as powerful giants, 2 Samuel 21:16-22; Deuteronomy 2:10-11; 3:11 tell of them as well. They did exist after the flood. May I ask why you believe that God flooded the “earth” and punished the entire human race because of their sins? Genesis 6:5-13 stresses that the sons of God and the Nephilim were only part of the problem. For, “All the people on earth had corrupted their ways, ” and “every inclination of the thoughts” of every human heart “was only evil all the time.” As I showed before they existed even after the flood, so it's quite obvious that the sole purpose of the flood was for humanity, God used other means to dispatch of the Nephilim; the armies of Abraham's descendants.

As far as I can find, there is absolutely nothing in Scripture that points to them being the neandrathal, or the date of the flood. This is a debate on if your position is Biblical. You might as well start arguing that Eve was a blonde or about the type of wood Christ was crucified on.

Mars wrote:

I am having a hard time not calling you names.

May I remind you that this is a civil debate, we check the ad hominems at the door. More importantly though is the fact, that along with your theology, your methods are not Biblical. For we are called “to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander” (1 Peter 3:15). Christ is to be Lord over our hearts, not our intellect or our proof. Your attitude in this debate is far from what Paul states in 2 Timothy 2:24-25: “And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth.” Once again we see the fact that it is not our arguments that lead people to the Truth, it is God's grace. “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5).

Mars wrote:

Your giberish about nephesh was completely irrelevant. Then you preceed to contradict yourself. The relevant phrase is gaw-dole' tan-neen' which in a sublinear is "the-great-ones" "the-monsters"; Both in Strong's and Brown-Driver-Briggs there is the word dragon for the expression tan-neen'.

Like I showed in my end note, that passage of Genesis strictly refers to soulish creatures. Reptiles are not soulish creatures, they are simply a physical bodies that contain the nervous, digestive, respiratory, circulatory, and reproductive systems. The passage in Leviticus 11:46 denotes no such context and it refers to its broader form. Furthermore, every version of the Bible I find translates gadowl tanniyn as whales. Whales fits the description of a mammal (nephesh) and it fits with the context. If you keep reading it states that these creatures were in the sea, not on land.

Genesis 1:21 (New International Version) So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:21 (New American Standard Bible) God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:21 (King James Version) And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Now, it is true that it can be translated as dragons but seeing the context of the passage mixed with the usage of the Hewbrew for create (see endnote 5 in my first response), and what we know from general revelation that such a translation makes no sense.

Mars wrote:

(1) Who is claiming it is fresh? That is called a stick man. Any creationist would claim it is atleast thousands of years old.

Did you mean a straw man? I actually got fresh from the AiG article. Granted it was in parenthesis, but a couple thousand years is “fresh” when compared to 68 million years. I think you knew what I meant.

Mars wrote:

(2) Yes the blood cells, blood vessels, and connective tissue was amazingly preserved for 70 MILLION years. This is a perfect example of your kindof faith.

Like I stated before, there is not enough evidence to make such a call on the femur. You are jumping to this conclusion, a favorite of the creationist. If you would like to actually address my response on the matter I'll respond, but it's completely irrelevant to this debate. Dinosaurs existing a couple thousand years ago is not backed nor taught anywhere in the Bible.

that passage of Genesis strictly refers to soulish creatures. Reptiles are not soulish creatures, they are simply a physical bodies that contain the nervous, digestive, respiratory, circulatory, and reproductive systems. The passage in Leviticus 11:46 denotes no such context and it refers to its broader form. Furthermore, every version of the Bible I find translates gadowl tanniyn as whales. Whales fits the description of a mammal (nephesh) and it fits with the context. If you keep reading it states that these creatures were in the sea, not on land.

What is the anatomical difference between a creature that is a soul and one that is not? You do not know, nor do you understand what soul means. Every creature is a soul. Notice I did not say it has a soul but rather it is one. Just as we are souls. I wonder if we are going to have to debate the doctrine of an immortal soul my Platonic friend. Besides where in the bible is there a description of the creation of the non-soul creatures, if your dogma is to fit reality?

Notice just a few of the other places in the bible were tan-neen' is used;

(KJV-1611)

(Psalm 74:13, 14)
Thou didst diuide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters. Thou brakest the heads of Leuiathan in pieces, and gauest him to bee meat to the people inhabiting the wildernesse.

(Nehemiah 2:13)
And I went out by night, by the gate of the valley, euen before the dragon well, and to the doung-port, and viewed the walls of Ierusalem, which were broken downe, and the gates thereof were consumed with fire.

(Isaiah 27:1)
In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sworde shall punish Leuiathan the piercing serpent, euen Leuiathan that crooked serpent, and hee shall slay the dragon that is in the Sea.

(Isaiah 51:9)
Awake, awake, put on strength, O arme of the Lord, awake as in the ancient dayes, in the generations of old. Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon?

(Ezekiel 29:3)
Speake and say, Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the middest of his riuers, which hath saide, My riuer is mine owne, and I haue made it for my selfe.

Was the Leviathan a whale? Since when do whales live in or around rivers?

The simple fact is; tan-neen' can clearly be translated dragon (reptile). And it follows preciesely from scriptural presedent to do so in the case of;

(Genesis 1:21) And God proceeded to create the great dragons and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good.

Notice how the KJV (and many others) translates "and every living soul that moves about";

"and every living creature that moveth"

Notice soul and creature are synonamous. That is not a coincidence.

What was before the beginning [of creation]? This is a nonsense question. If there was something before the beginning [of creation] then that beginning [of creation] was not really so.

Are you suggesting that God only came into existence when the universe came into being? Or am I more correct; That God existed before the creation of the universe? Jesus only existed in the beginning of the creation, not before it. For Jesus is begotten and hence the son not the Father.

As for Revelations 3:14, the Greek here is archer signifies the one who was source of all creation, or the architect of all creation. Note Revelations 21:4-6 , it uses the same exact term. Shall we also believe that the Father is a creation?

(Revelation 3:14) Jesus is "...the beginning of the creation by God..."

(Revelation 21:6) "...the beginning and the end..." of what?

When arche is in the nominative case it is always translated "beginning" as correctly found in every translation of Revelation 3:14 and everywhere else.

If the bible writer wanted to mean "archetect" he would have used the Greek word archetekton. Nice try though.

For we are called “to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the REASON for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander” (1 Peter 3:15).... 2 Timothy 2:24-25: “And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth.”

Amen

(1) Alright, I completely misread what you wrote and I conceed that yes, I did have a “total mental fart.” I quickly call mulligan and hope to go again. I know this is a “formal” debate so if you want to take the score here, then go ahead.

(2) The Nephilim go by many names, including Rephiam (or sons of Rapha), Anakites, and Anakim, they are also referred to as “the giants.” Goliath, a giant who stood over nine feet was a descendent of Rapha, indicating that we could reproduce with the Nephilim. Furthermore, Numbers 13 describe the descendents of Anak as powerful giants, 2 Samuel 21:16-22; Deuteronomy 2:10-11; 3:11 tell of them as well. They did exist after the flood. May I ask why you believe that God flooded the “earth” and punished the entire human race because of their sins? Genesis 6:5-13 stresses that the sons of God and the Nephilim were only part of the problem. For, “All the people on earth had corrupted their ways, ” and “every inclination of the thoughts” of every human heart “was only evil all the time.” As I showed before they existed even after the flood, so it's quite obvious that the sole purpose of the flood was for humanity, God used other means to dispatch of the Nephilim; the armies of Abraham's descendants.

(3) As far as I can find, there is absolutely nothing in Scripture that points to them being the neandrathal, or the date of the flood. This is a debate on if your position is Biblical. You might as well start arguing that Eve was a blonde or about the type of wood Christ was crucified on.

(1) Point noted. 1 and 0 baby, yeah! :P

(2) Do I get a point if I have to repeat myself?

Nephilim means feller, or those who cause others to fall down. Anyone that is mighty and violent can be called a feller. However the children of the angels were destroyed in the flood. The fellers spoken of latter in the bible are never called children of the sons of the [true] God (angels).

(3) As far as you can distort my argument about the children of the angels.

But about the date of the flood;

(Genesis 7:11) "...in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened."
“Second month.” Following the Exodus from Egypt, when Jehovah gave the Israelites the sacred calendar, this became the eighth month, known as Bul, corresponding to the latter half of October and first half of November.

Do you disagree, if so why?

I would like everyone to note a continuing pattern in Mars' responses. He never really addresses the Scripture he just continues to rattle off verses and arguments that “support” his position. I am going to ask again for Mars to explain these verses that speak of Christ's eternal existence.
Citing a list of scriptures is not an argument. Don't get lazy on me. Heck you didnt even quote the scriptures. Why don't you explain them and demonstrate why they are relevent to your proof. Besides I did explain one of your verses and we are currently arguing about it.

You posit that God created us and we created computers. These are not the same types of creation. God brought us and the material out of nothing, out of something that never existed before. We created computers out of preexisting materials. We did not give them ... anything ... that has never existed before.

Have digital processors always existed? If not, does that mean we created them out of nothing? Or did we use silicon wafers as the substance to form them from?

You said;

In the Bible David defines man as the purpose, the pinnacle, of God's creation (Psalm 8).

I said;

It says no such thing

You quote and say;

Psalm 8:4-9 What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet: all flocks and herds, and the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas. O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!

Please explain this Psalm to me Mars.

This scriptures does not say we are the purpose and pinnacle of God's creation.

I noticed that you used Acts 17:28 to state that Paul believed in a pantheistic worldview. Looking at Acts 17:24 we see that Paul is referring to a “God who made the world and everything in it.” You believe that God is the world and everything in it. This obviously destroys all attempts to argue that Paul was a pantheist. Paul is simply saying that we have our being “in Him, ” not that we are in fact God. God is the originating (Colossians 1:17) Cause, and “sustaining” (Hebrews 1:3) Cause of all thing. Moreover, Paul was an orthodox Jew, a strict monotheist. He believed that God from which “all things came and for whom we live” (Corinthians 8:4).

Pantheists do not say "we are in fact God". Straw man number two.

"it is difficult, or impossible, to reconstruct a Second Temple Pharisaic theology, because Judaism itself is non-creedal; that is, there is no dogma or set of orthodox beliefs that Jews believed were required of Jews." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisee

The Talmudic-Midrashic literature, as well as the works of Philo are clearly pantheistic. Paul quotes Stoic Pantheists and espouses there doctrine. Was he lying to them? Baruch Spinoza the Jew who gives us one of the most methodical proofs of pantheism himself said the ancient Jews did not separate God from the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah

Monotheism and pantheism are not mutually exclusive. It is a simple fact of history that Jewish monotheistic pantheism has existed throughout the ages.

I said;

I believe in monism of substance. Plurality of form is fine with me.

you say;

I am still really confused here. You keep claiming that you are a monist but then

(1) you state that things differ by relative non-being (at least, that's what I am able to decipher).

That all differentiation is by negation, which is not monism. A sculptor would “differentiate” a statue from the stone by chiseling away or negating everything that is not the statue. Regardless, this ultimately leads you right back into monism, for if things only differed by non-being then things would not differ at all, hence everything would be one. Therefore, 'All I-thou and I-I relationships are reduced to I and then there can be no changing relation at all. If we are nothing more than different modes of God then we are not having an experience, God is. Thus, religious experience and relationships become impossible.'

(1) I have never stated that, nor have I implied it.

My pantheism or my belief in God's immanence clearly supersueds explicit monism. That is why I said I believe in monism of substance. Atheists believe in that much. If your having a hard time understanding this please read the Stanford research paper I showed you; http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/

How can God make Himself not God, how can He rip off a chunk of His own “body” and cast it out from Him for all eternity. What? What's that? You hold that those lost to sin are annihilated? Really? I thought that energy (God) could not be created nor destroyed? Uh-ohs! Consequently, God cannot be energy by your own standards!

If I make a castle out of sand. Assuming I wanted to then destroy the castle, all I would have to do is destroy it's form. The form of the castle no longer exists. However the sand that comprised the castle still exists.

In addition, even you stated that “all forms of energy... are limited by the speed of light.” Are you really stating that God is governed by other laws? For if there is a law give above God, natural or not, then He is no longer God, He is no longer the final authority. The Creator has lost control to His creation. How do you expect God to rid us of evil if He cant even break the natural laws that He created? Also, is God subject to entropy? Shall God wind away to “nothing” one of these days? Therefore, God cannot be energy.

Sloppy mess after sloppy mess.

Every form of energy is a creation. God is energy and was not created. God can do nothing contrary to his nature.

Moreover, we are able to change energy into matter. Are you suggesting that we have power over God and that we can force Him to create? Your God is at its creatures beck and call, your God has lost the battle of the tower of Babel; man's scientific endeavors have risen above God. Not only did we succeed at fulfilling Satan's lie, that is, we can be our own god, but we have become God's god! Ergo, God cannot be energy.

We can tranform one form of energy into another. However we cannot form energy. That is the total inertial mass of the universe cannot be increased by us. (All forms of energy have inertial mass). That particular aspect of God is most likely only accessable to Jesus and possibly the angels.

Another issue here if you are arguing that God is energy, you are saying that He is part of the universe. Do you hold that God is beyond the universe, that he is transcendent? It seems to me that when you say immanence of God you mean that God is the world, I would hold that God is within or present to the entire universe, but he is not a part of it. He is the Creator and we are the creation. The entire heavens cannot contain Him (1 Kings 8:27), for He is higher than the heavens (Job 11:7-8; Psalm 8:1, 57:5). God is “over all” (Ephesians 4:6) and “before all” Colissians (1:17). Thus, God cannot be energy.

If God's immanence is the creation which is the forms of energy; then if I may interprete his transcendence explicitly, it would be unformed energy. Space has no form. So, I would like to add we would not exist without God's transendent quality.

Continuing on the theme of ex Deo, that is, matter was created out of God we have more problems. If ex Deo was true then it would not be a sin to worship the creation rather that the Creator as Romans 1:25 and Exodus 20:4 proclaim. The universe is different from God just as a potter is different to his clay (Romans 9:20-21). Picasso's creative mind is portrayed in his art, but that art is not part of Picasso. Furthermore, creation cannot be out of God's substance because God is eternal while his creation is not. Whatever is created goes through a change and God cannot change. Don t believe me? Let's ask God. Yo, God! Do you like, change and stuff?? “I the LORD do not change!” (Malachi 3:6) Well crap. I don't know about you Mars, but I wouldn't want to mess with God. What? What's that you say? God was confused. Hmm... maybe so. Let's check out Scripture. I'm just gonna open to a page and read the first thing I see. Ready? (Hebrews 1:10-12) “They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end." Hmmm, I cant argue with that. Can you Mars? Subsequently, God cannot be energy, nor could the creation have been ex Deo.

Yawn....

Can you understand a difference between form and substance? Do not worship any form... that is clearly taught in the bible.

you said;

Furthermore, the Hebrew here denotes bringing about something that is totally new, something that never existed before.

I said;

Would you claim that matter has always existed? Could then the formation of the material universe from energy be called the creation of the material universe?

You never answered my question. Instead you act like you werent caught in your own logic. Repeating your conclusions after I have demonstrated that it is faulty is simply dishonest.

For example you repeat this conclusion even though your rear was handed to you.

the Bible strongly posits that creation was ex nihilo, or out of nothing. Like I stated before, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).

It does no such thing; this is dishonest hackery.

How God created the physical universe is beyond me.

If it is beyond you to understand how God creates, how can it be possible for you to suggest my understanding of God's natures is unbiblical? For I know how God creates. If you do not know, how can you say my knowing is wrong; As if you had a more accurate explaination so as to tell if my proof is wrong?

John 4:24 posits that, “God is spirit, ” and 1 Timothy 1:17 declares that God is invisible. Furthermore, according to John 1:18, “no one has ever seen God.” So then, God is both invisible and immaterial. The universe is capable of being handled and seen, it's tangible and physical (Hebrews 11:3). You are attempting to place God under a microscope, something which we cannot do.

Only a small number of forms of energy can be seen such that they emite or reflect or communicate photons of the light spectrum onto our retena. Unformed energy obviously cannot be seen nor the majority of the forms of energy. You cannot see except by God. The reality is, you are not external to God. So, you cannot see God in the sense that we mean see something external to us. Can the eye see itself by itself? You can only percieve God. You can only see a reflection of God's glory through his creation.

Furthermore, if the universe was created out of energy then Hebrews 11:3 could not be true, unless you hold that God can change,

(Hebrews 11:3) By faith we perceive that the systems of things were put in order by God’s word, so that what is beheld has come to be out of things that do not appear.

You must be thinking of another scripture.

I still posit that your 'worldview is metaphysically indistinguishable from atheism. Both are one eternal self-contained system, you just so happen to want to throw some religious significance into it.'

Posit your empty claims all you want. Or you could just read up on the matter and stop with the ignorance; http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/

What doctrines of Reformed Theology do you hold as irrational? Can you explain why you hold them as such?

Your beliefs;
(1) Are not founded on reason,
(2) An infinite being can be finite at the same time,
(3) Finite sin requires infinite or eternal torment in fire,
(4) A God of love can torture someone forever,
(5) ...

Mars you seemed to have missed my point again, I don't know what this has anything to do with what I just asked. One of the first things that you proclaimed right out of the gate was that, 'Every aspect of [your] beliefs can either be proven necessarily and or sufficiently through empirical science.' I asked you to show empirically the miracles of the Bible. Can you do so?

More so, if you are a pantheist then how do you account for miracles? There can be no supernatural events in your world, because God is the universe. So Mars, here we have miracles as a natural mechanism in our universe, this mechanism is therefore objective and able to be known. What is it? How does it work? How does it think without a brain? How does it talk? And so forth.

Is not every miracle the product of intelligence?

I said;

If any transformation of energy does not follow from an insensate phenomena it requires intelligence to produce such a transformation. This follows from my proof of intelligent design.

When the scientist's finally create life in the lab (I hear they are close), do you think they will have disproven intelligent design, or proven how intelligent design of life can be accomplished? Would they be producing a miracle? Would not the creation of life be a miracle? Intelligent design and miracles are one and the same.

Is it a miracle; To communicate with each other across the world? To fly? To walk on the moon? To split an atom?

The point is I do not have to demonstrate how to accomplish every invention of intelligent design (miracles) to prove that it does occure.

It seems clear to me that this verse is demonstrating that we should not accept the words of those who claim to be of God until we examine them against the Word of God. For the Bereans “examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11). The Word of God, or Scripture is “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). This allows us to be on guard against all false teachings such as yours.

There is a few different kinds of proof; theological, logical, and empirical. If what Paul was saying needed to be proven to the Boreans, yet what he says is infact what we call the bible; Do you not see that scriptural or theological proof is not enough? Paul quotes Stoic philosophers... Would the Boreans need to read Epeminides to make sure of what Paul was quoting?

Prove all things? Consider the following from Aquinas ... ”If it were necessary to use a strict demonstration as the only way to reach knowledge of the things we must know about God, very few could ever construct such a demonstration and even these could do it only after a long time.”

Aquinas, we have had thousands of years. Not only do we stand on your shoulders we stand on many others as well. With access to the internet, research is far easier then in your day.

[T]he Bible teaches that our convictions are not to be based upon human wisdom! Human wisdom isn't always wrong; sometimes people used their intellect and their independent ability to research, and find facts and come to truths which are very valuable. The problem is not that human wisdom is always wrong. The problem is that human wisdom is (1) fallible, and (2) not a sufficient foundation for believing anything about God. Because only God is adequate to witness to Himself!

How does one go about having beliefs in God by reading the bible without assuming God means something by the words he speaks. Does not disernment of meaning reside in reason? Therefore it is impossible to believe anything without reason as the fundiment. Many are not methotical in there use of reason, therefore they have many illogical beliefs.

I ask you again Mars. Do you leave any room for God's grace, or does all the credit go into your teachings and “proofs?” It is true that God uses us to evangelize but it's not our teachings that save our fellow man, it's God's efficacious grace. We are born again not by man's will, but God's (John 1:12-13).

It is by God's grace, we are given room to share the teachings of Christ.


:)

So who won?

(a) rationalism and the doctrine of God's immanence? or...

(b) irrationalism and a multitude of Babylonish dogmas?


Cast your votes.



I vote for (a)

:P

You know, never once did I state that my position was actually being irrational. The conclusions I come to may not follow from what I stated but for someone to actually hold that their worldview is irrationalism is silly and self-defeating. One has to use reason to even state that their position is arguing for irrationalism. God is a rational being and seeing as we were created in His image it follows that we are rational beings as well. No Christian in their right mind would state that one has to be irrational in their faith. You might find some that try to say that logic doesnt apply to God, but once again this is self-defeating as well. Is God subject to the logic that God isnt subject to logic? So if you could please stop positing such nonsense and try to understand the points I was attempting to raise about the role of reason and it's ability to bring one to Christ based on our own autonomous reasoning.

CalvinWrote:
You know, never once did I state that my position was actually being irrational. The conclusions I come to may not follow from what I stated but for someone to actually hold that their worldview is irrationalism is silly and self-defeating. One has to use reason to even state that their position is arguing for irrationalism. God is a rational being and seeing as we were created in His image it follows that we are rational beings as well. No Christian in their right mind would state that one has to be irrational in their faith. You might find some that try to say that logic doesnt apply to God, but once again this is self-defeating as well. Is God subject to the logic that God isnt subject to logic? So if you could please stop positing such nonsense and try to understand the points I was attempting to raise about the role of reason and it's ability to bring one to Christ based on our own autonomous reasoning.

"The conclusions I come to may not follow from what I stated"

Freudian slip?

A valid conclusion is one that follows from it's stated premises;

Tell my how your invalid arguments prevent you from being irrational.

MarsWrote:

"The conclusions I come to may not follow from what I stated"

Freudian slip?

A valid conclusion is one that follows from it's stated premises;

Tell my how your invalid arguments prevent you from being irrational.

I was not stating that this was actually true about my position, I was simply stating that my position could be "irrational" if my conclusions did not follow from what I stated. I was trying to demonstrate how "irrational" could even be used to describe my argument. There is a difference between this and someone saying that their position relies on nonsense yet somehow describes truth. The latter position is completely self-defeating.

Jesse,

Go ahead and do a voting thread or whatever you want to do. While there are a couple of things that I feel actually do need some addressing I'd rather not open this can of worms again.

MarsWrote:
Did you just vote that God is immanent?

Do you realize this is the central doctrine of pantheism?

Immanent AND transcendent, that is my position. Stop skewing what I have already stated.

CalvinWrote:
[t]MarsWrote:
Did you just vote that God is immanent?

Do you realize this is the central doctrine of pantheism?[/t]
Immanent AND transcendent, that is my position. Stop skewing what I have already stated.

Do you believe in panentheism then?

Okay, I've created the thread here.  I'll be erasing the responses in this thread that aren't part of the debate - basically everything on Jan 31 and on.  I'll leave those responses up for a while though - just so that the original posters remember to take their responses over to the voting thread.