You use the same absurd YECist method of illogical argument.
Please demonstrate a meaningful choice. Particularly one made by God. Apart from incarnation of course. The choice that counts.
Please demonstrate when and where God made such choices. Beyond incarnation and its first couple of ripples.
The rational fact that God has created for eternity is irrelevant, that God creates intrinsically is irrelevant? If you say so.
Again, where is the manifestation of choice? And when?
Itâs perfectly orthodox and what has animation got to do with it? Sounds like an ego too desperate for meaning to me.
He responded - chose - in Christ and continues to do so by the Spirit. He absolutely certainly doesnât respond in any other way in the physical. Despite all deluded claims of divine healing and lost car keys found for example. All the cognitive bias, the irrational epistemology, the apophenia.
So youâre happy with the doubly erroneous OP are you? And that God sent Chicxulub (left out the first yoo elsewhere, tsk, tsk) to ruin the Earth for us? My namesakeâs most terribly beautiful short story comes to mind. Like Jesus and the blind guy, He didnât get it right first time?
[[And of course Bellâs Theorem is not a paradox but addresses the EPR, my apologies for the egregious insouciance.]
And my apology was of course premature. I didnât say it was. Although perhaps an Oxford comma would have helped. It does separate us from the animals after all.]
Youâve lost your mind. Kierkegaard was a Lutheran. Perhaps you should read some of his Christian writings. He might even convince you to become a âTrinitarian Christianâ yourself. (Is there any other kind?)
1 Like
Again ⌠you make a sweeping statement, but donât explain how I am using an illogical argument.
Are you typing with your toes? Is that why you are so reticent to type anything more than a sweeping generality, with no specifics?
Kierkegaard was a Lutheran. Which means?
@Klax seems to think the âmagicâ inherent to being a Trinitarian is disposable - - which suggests to me that he thinks Unitarian Christians are the only ones we should be talking about.
No he doesnât. I canât follow your âreasoningâ at all. You invoke a straw man and leap to a non-sequitur.
1 Like
I canât believe the incarnation because I wonât believe Jewish myth?
Again, can you join up the dots? I wonât be holding my breath as you canât even man up about your factual error and utterly unnecessary claim.
2 Likes
Exactly. There is no rhyme or reason.
Do you believe in the Trinity? Do you believe Jesus was born God?
Do you believe what we would call the Big Bang was a miraculous event produced by God?
Now, as to these last two points:
@klax,
If you would just TELL us what you believe, instead of criticizing my every post, I wouldnât have to play this guessing game with you. So, DO YOU BELIEVE in the incarnation? Or do you think it is a Jewish myth?
And finally⌠again you charge me with some factual error. But you never seem to spell out what the factual error is. If you would just specifically state what you think is the error, maybe I can confess my error before out mutual audience!
Hey I was expecting some discussion about abiogenesis, whatâs going on here?
The parameters of the discussion quickly resolved into whether âparticles from deep spaceâ:
[1] are employed by God as the logical result of natural processes vs.
[2] are employed by God as a super-natural process/event, vs.
[3] some combination of [1] and [2].
Why do you ignore my answers?
1 Like
I am trying to figure out what your answers mean. You speak obliquely, or use subjunctive phrases often with double negatives.
People who do this typically donât want to be understood.
Your constant complaint that I made a factual error but you refuse to state my explicit error is consistent with your evasiveness.
People who refuse to acknowledge a blatant error repeatedly and clearly pointed out from the word go that is plain to everyone have as issue.
What particles from deep space?
Why would God slaughter the Earth for us? Kill every living thing bigger than a pig?
Another perfectly wasted opportunity to make progress in the discussion.
Why are you even on these discussions?
- Neutrinos
- Cosmic Rays
Many scientists doubt primates would have evolved into a relatively vulnerable species like humans if Dinosaurs were still present on Earth.
What is your source for that for the former and what does the latter have to do with anything?
Why wonât you give your sources?
The article (the one that inspired the thread title) talks about âGamma Raysâ ⌠which are, in fact, high speed particles rather than photons. Neutrinos also bombard the Earth but usually without interacting with any matter on Earth ⌠but every once in a while, they do interact, so I thought I would add them to the list.
You asked why would God slaughter the dinosaurs. If God wanted to create humans through Evolution, part of the process would be to eliminate those creatures who would eat up all manner of primates as they speciated into something like humans.