Unprofitable Servant wrote: I do believe that the order in the universe speaks of the order in the nature of the God who created it.
You ignored my question, so I'll repeat & rephrase it: How is a deaf & blind person supposed to learn about God when he can't even see the creation which requires functional vision to perceive & appreciate?
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Thanks Neil,I have seen that you are saying that in the verse in Romans 1 it simply means perception. I would say the fact that verse plainly states are seen through understanding by the things that are MADE, that it involves as quoted in both definitions perception with the eye.
Sure I see power in volcanoes, quakes, etc., but it is a non sequitur to infer that it's necessarily divine power. And what does power, any power, look like? You didn't say. It *has* to be visual, according to your understanding of the verse. Can you see electricity? Heat? Gravity? Nuclear forces? I can see something move, but I cannot see the energy behind it. And what is a blind person supposed to believe when he can't even see the object moved?
The rest of your post recapitulates the Teleological Argument (aka Intelligent Design), which was decisively refuted two centuries ago by David Hume. He did us all a favor here, for even if true, it does not logically imply the Biblical God. Maybe it's the god of Rene Descartes, for example, or the Greek Demiurge. That classic Catholic argument opens an apologetic can of worms.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: I don't see your point. The passage states they are seen by the things that are made (that which we can see)The same word (seen) is used to refer to the apostles seeing the Lord Jesus after the resurrection and Paul used the same term when he talked about those who had not seen his face.
I can't make it any plainer than this: The word "see" does NOT ALWAYS mean visual perception, either in Scripture or standard usage. Invisible attributes by definition do not appear to the eye; therefore, in this passage, the word cannot mean what you think it does; it HAS to mean "to understand," which as I said, is a common synonym for the verb "to see."
It's a standard in dictionaries, e.g. #4 here and more importantly, #2here(NT)
If you're still not convinced, then please explain which attributes of God can be perceived by one's eyeballs. E.g., His omniscience? Omnipotence? Holiness? Personality? Righteousness? Triunity? Wisdom? How can these be visually imaged? Draw me a picture of an invisible attribute.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: (NKJV)For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
Note well: Invisible attributes are clearly SEEN! How does one see power & the Godhead when God is a spirit? So Paul isn't talking about things perceived with vision, or his declaration would be self-contradictory. Here "seen" means with the understanding, the mind, which is a common usage both in Scripture & colloquial speech. This verse is not discussing the operation of human senses, so it is of no help to empirical evidentialists. Do you *see* my point?
Man is w/o excuse not because of what his eyes see or don't see, for observations alone, even accurate ones, prove nothing, but because his innate knowledge of God is denied absent a work of the Spirit. Otherwise a blind & deaf person would have an excuse for unbelief.
Michael Hranek wrote: Maybe you don't know your Bible as well as you ought to. The heaven declare? Do you know? Is it experiencial[sic] to you or just nice sounding words on a page?â€¦ And God likewise saw fit to give us minds and we ought to use them.
Then use your mind & tell me how exactly stars & galaxies prove anything in the sense you think that verse intends. What propositions are found in them? What syllogisms should I use on said propositions?
Job 38 has something to say about the value of searching for knowledge in nature.
Michael Hranek wrote: Now we might do well to consider that the Truth is "testable", there will be in that natural world "evidence" that what God has told us is indeed true.
It is strange for a Christian to assert that we must test God's Word; aren't we warned against doing such a thing? Why should faith in the unseen need material props?
And such â€śevidenceâ€ť isn't evidence at all when fallacious reasoning is used to recommend it, viz:
If A, then B B Therefore A
is precisely what AiG & ICR use to reason in favor of their â€śscientificâ€ś evidence, same as Darwinists do. Yet this is a formal fallacy! AiG et al. are trying to win arguments with fools by using fools' reasoning.
The Emperor has no clothes: What few Christians (lay or professional) seem to realize, along with their atheistic opponents, is that *all* empirical truth claims for various origin views, including those of Young-Earthers who do not want to appear odious by appealing to Scripture, are fatally flawed. One doesn't even have to be a Christian to see the logical problems, e.g. Bertrand Russell in â€śIs Science Superstitious?â€ť If one of the most notorious atheists of the 20th century admitted fatal weaknesses in Science, then Christians better take note â€“Â and point this out to Darwinists!
The mistake many Creationists make usually consists of Special Pleading: spinning the evidential speculation towards Genesis instead of Descent With Modification. But in any case, it's still a fallacy to Affirm the Consequent.
I know the Flood occurred because the Bible Tells Me So, not because of fossils in sediment, which prove nothing.
San Jose John wrote: Which is no doubt why so many global warming (and global cooling) enthusiasts have had such difficulty validating their claims.
One thing no apologists (to my knowledge) have addressed is how computer models can prove anything when floating-point math has inherent representation & computational error. Dr. William Kahan of UC Berkeley is probably the world's leading authority on this subject; the IEEE 754 std. he instigated back in '85 is used by most computers on the planet, but this only mitigates the problem (as he admits) & does not eliminate it.
If you can't bound numerical errors, then how can you account for discrepancies between theory & measurements even when samples have no error (which is impossible)?
You might appreciate the following example of how even a simple geometric formula can degenerate badly given certain inputs: Needle Triangle He has also exposed weaknesses in popular software like Excel & Matlab.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: They need to stop monkeying with the home school curriculum.
If formal logic is taught, & children are encouraged to practice & use it (risking possible embarrassment to instructors & preachers), then evolution is no more dangerous than any other mythology, since it is based on empiricsm, a flawed basis of knowledge. Even micro-evolution. being empirical also, cannot withstand such scrutiny.
The relevant fallacies of science (admitted by no less than atheist Bertrand Russell) are Induction & Affirming the Consequent. These are utterly devastating to science claims.
The only value to science is development of models of how nature works, which makes possible various inventions. But models are NEVER true.
Just one example: The NASA atmosphere model. It is an horrible hash of interpolated measured data & improvised equations, running on computers which do not even comply with fundamental rules of analytic arithmetic.
While not opposed to corporal punishment in itself, I now have grave doubts that many of the modern crop of "educators" aren't closet S&M perverts just waiting for someone to "discipline." Fearing child molesters, people drive their kids to school nowadays, yet foolishly *assume* that school staff can be trusted.
Think about it the next time you entrust your children to *any* hirelings, including nursery workers, Sunday School teachers, & youth ministers. Think I'm exaggerating? Christ alludes to an often-overlooked general principle in John 10: "But he that is an hireling â€¦ careth not for the sheep."
Les Enfants wrote: But where is the recording of Spurgeon?
Why does it matter? We have plenty of Spurgeon's thoughts in writing; why should we care what his voice sounded like? In any case, early recordings have serious frequency distortion (bandpass effects), so the recording of Bell is not necessarily what he sounded like in person.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Neil, to be honest, too much there to respond to in the characters available.
You don't have to include my *entire* post in your reply! It's already available below.
A little more background:Petrodollar Warfare BTW I only discovered this article after my previous post. Now we may never know the unstated motives of our Presidents, but I do know this: The US didn't need a worldwide military presence in its 1st century of existence, so why now? We may not *think* we're Yankee Imperialists, but we're sure acting like one, & it plays perfectly into Marxist & Islamist propaganda. If we *wanted* more people to be recruited by these ideologies, I couldn't think of a better way to do it.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: In all due respect, if you don't think we should be vigilant with a war of terrorism, maybe you need to get your head out of the proverbial sand.
This is not to excuse Al Qaeda et al., but consider their declared reason for anti-American terrorism: our Mideast presence, particularly our Saudi bases. Now why are we protecting a country just as fanatical about Islam as Iran, & just as hostile to our value system (secular or Christian)? Why the alliance with Saudi? Answer: petrodollar$; we don't want the Saudi regime to fall into the hands of a hostile party (in the past, Soviets, Saddam Hussein, & now, terrorists) who'll repudiate the '73 Nixonian quid-pro-quo of security in exchange for requiring payment in the world's Reserve Currency. If this collapses (& it may anyway thanks to Iran & China), our spendthrift gov't & society will go the Greek way in a hurry. Americans, like Greek Socialists, are addicted to other people's money.
So this is what Americans have been fighting & dying for: the money-printing Progressive Welfare State, supported for almost a century going now by both parties & the RCC. This must be what patriots consider to be freedom.
Great Sermon! great video and lot of commonsense spoke here, listened to scot johnson he would have you believing this story about the guy leaving with rucksack still on him, and the blast in texas was a missile and done on a date to coincide with human sacrifice ????, like your stuff pastor mike you talk lot of sense and at least research your stuff before putting it out there , well done
"eternal life is a relationship with God through Jesus Christ alone."
Preachers repeating this vague mantra are part of the problem, to wit, lack of clarity. Folks have all sorts of relationships: father, son, husband, wife, friend, boss, magistrate, employee, acquaintance, stranger, mistress, victim, enemy, & so on. Even the most strident atheists have a relationship with Christ, just one with very bad eternal consequences.
No wonder people are confused about salvation, when the trumpet makes such uncertain sounds.
Why all the fuss? Admit it: There is not a shred of Biblical evidence that NT church officers have any more role in the marriage ceremony than did the Levitical priesthood before. In most cultures, marriages are made by the good-faith vows of the couple, not by the solemnization & signature of a priest or pastor. Christianity did not change its fundamental nature as a contract between man & woman.
I find it incredible that so many "Protestants," supposedly mindful of the Bible, don't see that marriage sacerdotalism is a mere tradition of men, a popish superstition. Invite your pastor as a guest if you like, but he isn't necessary.