Perhaps because the h2o molecules, when heated, are further spread out. This makes it easier for the heat energy to be leached from an essentially larger surface area.

I imagine it's a result of various forces and circumstances (I don't think it's a coincidence that the droplets were soapy water which would increase it's surface tension/bubble strength).

Also keep in mind that a droplets surface would be a mesh of the outermost water molecules held together by their polar attraction. As the sphere bounces and moves its surface would have mini waves and ripples along it that would push against and then move away from the molecules on the water surface below it as the kinetic and polar forces acted.

If you imagine that every sphere of water had portions of its surface moving away from the water surface below and then oscillating back towards the surface while the molecules on the spheres surface that had been touching the water surface below would begin to oscillate back into the sphere.

This would create many points of contact oscillating against and away from the water surface below and thus there might not be enough contact/pressure between the 2 surfaces for it to coalesce at any given time. Imagine bugs whose feet are tiny enough for them to "stand" on water due to surface tension and the principle would be the same. It'd be like an infinite number of these bugs legs jumping up and down on the water at a microscopic level.

Also I'm not familiar enough with how water molecules align themselves while at the surface of something so perhaps the alignment of their atoms helps as well?

Thats all a guess though I'm sure you could google the real answer.

My guess is that in order for the two bodies of water (the main body and each droplet) to coalesce, their molecules have to agree on a resonating frequency. When there is no other interference, the droplets take on the frequency of the larger body almost immediately. Since the main body is resonating at a frequency above normal, the droplets can't "catch up", and so bounce and wobble along, trying to achieve equilibrium with the larger body, and failing.

Just a guess.

I would test it, if I could. By “God”, I’m assuming you’re still talking about Yahweh specifically, and not just any random god-type entity. If that’s the case, then I’ve already falsified the claim that the Bible is perfect, so that argument is gone.

You haven't falsified it. If you have, show me where. If you're referring to Matthews lineage using Chiastic structure, that isn't an imperfection. Chaistic structure is a literary device, so Matthews genealogy is not giving us the entire line, but rather like an artistic summation of it. To say it is wrong would be like telling a painter his painting is wrong.

If you’re merely making a deist claim, then I can’t argue with you. I take no position on deism other than if some deity created the universe and set it in motion, I have no reason to believe it cares about humans, and it certainly has made no edicts that I perceive as to how I should live my life.

Since you have no argument against a potential God, and couldn't tell whether you were living in His Universe or not, then how would you know if this God cares about humans or if it has laid down any edicts about how you should live your life?

You’re not listening to me. Seriously. I do have ways of determining which story is more likely. Occam’s razor is the best for this problem. The complexities introduced by faith in Yahweh and the Bible are necessarily more complex than the problems they solve. They are also blind faith (I'm talking about the vast majority of the faithful, and about what you're recommending I do), which is willful self-delusion. The theories that physicists and biologists have come up with are quite convincing, especially if you understand how science works.

I have been listening to you and what I have found is that if you can find some kind of excuse to dismiss something that seems even potentially legitimate, then you run with it. You only seem interested in trying to falsify the question, because you apparently have already decided it isn't true. You don't have any real evidence to prove it, but in previous conversations you have said you see no reason to bother thinking about it. In short, you don't care.

You say I'm talking about blind faith, and I'm not. I believe what I believe because God convinced me of its truth. I had no reason to believe it otherwise, and I wouldn't. I am telling you that if you draw near to God, He will draw near to you. He loves you and wants you to know Him. You just don't want to know Him and that is the problem.

Neither do you understand the law of parsimony. The law states that in explaining a given phenomenon, we should make as few assumptions as possible. Therefore, if we have two theories which are equal in explanatory power, but one has fewer assumptions, we should choose the one with fewer assumptions. However, a more complex theory with better explanatory power should be chosen over a more simplistic theory with weaker explanatory power. I think John Lennox kind of sums this all up at 3:00



Agreed. I find myself in an environment in which my species was capable of evolving. It says nothing of how statistically improbable it is.

You were created in your parents womb; this says nothing about evolution. It only says that you have some way to come into existence, personally. It says nothing about the particulars of how that came to be.

Disagree. I’m lucky that of all the possible combinations of molecules that could have come together to create our terrestrial environment, the right ones came together to create life, then the right DNA strands combined to eventually create me. I’m lucky, sure, but given the length of time we’ve had, there’s no reason I should be surprised, especially when there's no reason to assert that this is the only universe.

There is no reason to assert it isn't, either. In a finely tuned Universe, it is more plausible to believe it was designed rather than it just happened to be one Universe out of trillions that implausibly just looks like it was designed because if you have enough Universes eventually one will form that appears that way. Remember Occams Razor?

You ask why multiple universes are more likely than a deity? Because you and I both know for sure there is at least one universe, so positing some more of them is less of a stretch than asserting a self-contradictory entity, alien to our objective experience, defying any consistent and meaningful description, so vastly complex that it cannot be properly understood, and so full of human failings that it looks man-made.

That would be true if God were any of those things. I can agree with you though that your understanding of God is self-contradictory, alien to your experience, etc. You believe you have God figured out, when you don't know Him at all. You would actually do anything to know God, but you are rejecting Him out of ignorance.

In the scenario between multiple universes or God as a theory to describe a finely tuned Universe, God wins every time. It doesn't matter how complex God might be; the explanatory power afforded by the theory is by far superior.

I’m sceptical of all your claims because that’s how I roll. I’m sceptical of everything, especially big claims. It’s the smartest way to avoid being duped.

You're skeptical of everything that doesn't agree with your presuppositions about reality. Those I have rarely if ever seen you seriously question in all the time I have spoken to you. Regarding knowledge that agrees with those presuppositions, you feel free to speculate about that all day long and will say that virtually any of it is more plausible with no evidence. The thing is, I used to be on your side of the fence, and I know what a search for the truth looks like. This isn't it.

The smartest way to avoid being duped is to understand that you might be duped at this moment and not realize it. That's the trouble with being deceived; you think you're right when you are really wrong.

You have been telling me that I must believe in the one true thing that is true that is Yahweh and the Bible and creation because it’s true because it’s true because it’s true because it’s the only possibility.

What I've been telling you is that God is not hiding from you. You are hiding from Him. It's not that you don't know there is a God so much as you don't want to know that there is. You simply want to do whatever you think is right and you automatically reject any possibility that says this is wrong and you are in fact accountable to a higher authority. In short, your attitude towards God is not skeptical but rebellious.

Now, I conceive of another possibility: my 10^trillion universes. You agree it’s possible, so there’s no reason for me to believe yours is necessarily true. If I have to choose between them, the one that doesn’t require the further explanation of a sentient deity more complex than 10^trillion universes is simpler. And even then, I DON’T HAVE TO CHOOSE one or the other. I can remain sceptical. To me, it’s foolish not to.

I concede its possible that God could have created other Universes, but I don't concede the idea that Universes just happen by themselves. This is really a very foolish idea. It's like coming across a coke can and believing wind and erosion created it. It only seems plausible to you because you must have a naturalistic explanation for your existence to make sense of your reality.

I don't expect you to believe in God unless He gives you some kind of revelation. I frequently pray that you will receive this revelation, both for you and the sake of your family.

Since I already pointed out this flawed understand of the law of parsimony, I won't reiterate that argument here.

While we’re talking about being honest with ourselves, I’d like to hear it from you that the following things are *at least technically possible*: that Yahweh doesn’t exist; that your relationship with Yahweh is an illusion created by you inside your head because you are human and human minds are prone to occasional spectacular mistakes; that the Bible was created by deluded humans; that the universe is around 14 billion years old; that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old; that life on Earth started 1-2 billion years ago; and that all species evolved from primitive life forms. To be clear, I’m not asking you to accept them as true or even probable, just state whether this collection of statements is possible or impossible.

This is what Paul said:

1 Corinthians 15:17,19

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

I wasn't there at the resurrection; I take it on faith. My faith has been borne out by the evidence, such as being born again, witnessing miracles, and experiencing the presence of God in my daily life. I don't admit any of those things; I have most definitely received revelation from God, and there is no other plausible explanation for the evidence. If you can concede that God can give you certain knowledge then you can understand why I don't doubt that knowledge.

Notice what George Wald said?

I notice that you only quote scientists out of context, or when they’re speaking poetically. I guarantee he never said that in a scientific paper. Life may be a wonder, not a miracle.

I *only* do? That's a false generalization. This quote is right on target, and I challenge you to show me where I have taken George out of context. This is what scientists believe, that time + chance makes just about anything possible. Has life ever been observed coming entirely from non living matter? That's a miracle, and that's what you must believe happened either here or somewhere in the Universe.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/

Near the end, you’ll find this gem: “The history of physics has had that a lot, … Certain quantities have seemed inexplicable and fine-tuned, and once we understand them, they don’t seem to [be] so fine-tuned. We have to have some historical perspective.”

If you haven't done so already, watch the first 10-20 minutes of this: http://videosift.com/video/The-God-of-the-Gaps-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson. It's "creationism/intelligent design" laid bare as a position of weakness. Your "fine tuning" trope is part of "intelligent design" and has the same historical flaw.

It's the God of the gaps argument which is flawed. It's not a God of the gaps argument when the theory is a better explanation for the evidence.

It's just a bare fact that there is a number of physical constants in an extremely narrow range which conspire to create a life permitting Universe. It's even admitted on the wikipedia page:

Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life".[2] However he continues "...the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

What do you mean, “they hate that possibility”? Why should a scientist hate any possibility? If there were science that pointed to the real existence of God, that’s exactly the way their investigations would go. That’s what motivated early modern scientists – they believed unravelling the laws of the universe by experiment would reveal God’s nature. It was only when the scientific path of experimentation split conclusively away from the biblical account that anybody considered that religious faith and scientific endeavour might become separate enterprises.

The roost of the scientific establishment today is ruled by atheistic naturalists, and they very much hate the idea of God polluting their purely naturalistic theories. They consider science to be liberated from religion and they vigorously patrol the borders, expelling anyone who dares to question the established paradigm. A biologist today who questions the fundamentals of evolutionary theory commits professional suicide. It is now conventional wisdom and you either have to get with the program or be completely shut out of the community.

Here are some other interesting quotes for you:

Richard Lewontin “does acknowledge that scientists inescapably rely on ‘rhetorical’ proofs (authority, tradition) for most of what they care about; they depend on theoretical assumptions unprovable by hard science, and their promises are often absurdly overblown … Only the most simple-minded and philosophically naive scientist, of whom there are many, thinks that science is characterized entirely by hard inference and mathematical proofs based on indisputable data

Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.

As for the “much” stronger evidence, as stated in the article, every time scientists solve a mystery of something they thought was “finely tuned”, they realized that there is a much simpler explanation than God. Evolution, for instance, eliminates the question of "fine tuning" in life. “God” is a metaphor for “things outside my understanding”. Once they move within our understanding, nobody claims that they’re God anymore. And FWIW, some of the most famous scientists ever came to the same "Because God" conclusion, which held until someone else got past it and solved what they couldn't.

I'm glad you understand that the whole enterprise of science was initially driven by the Christian idea that God created an orderly Universe based on laws, and thus we could reason out what was going on by investigating secondary causes. Yet God wasn't a metaphor for something we didn't understand; God was the reason we were interested in trying to understand in the first place, or even thought that we could.

You say there is this "because God" brick wall that we break down by determining the operations of the Universe. We can then see that it was never God at all, but X Y Z, yet what does that prove? Genesis 1 says "God created", and that He controls everything. What you're confusing is mechanism with agency. Can you rule out a clockmaker by explaining how the clock works? That's exactly what you're saying here, and it is an invalid argument.

You also act as if evolution has been indisputably proven. Let me ask you this question, since you claim to understand science so well. What is the proof and evidence that evolution is a fact? Be specific. What clinches it?

So to your conclusion, how do you figure that the appearance of fine tuning—which seems to go away when you look close enough—is stronger evidence?

It only goes away when you come to a series of false conclusions as you have above. The evidence is there, even the scientists admit it. To avoid the conclusion multiple universes are postulated. However, this is even more implausible for this reason; the multiple universe generator would be even more fine tuned than this Universe. Therefore, you are pointing right back at a fine tuner once more.

Eh??? But in your last nine paragraphs, YOU yourself, a limited temporal creature, have been trying to prove God’s existence with your “fine tuning” argument (corrupt reasoning, like you say), even after you've repeatedly asserted in the other threads that the only possible evidence for God is that he’ll answer our prayers. Why are you bothering? It is laughable how inconsistent you’re being here.

I wouldn't know the truth on my own; only God can reveal what the truth is. There are two routes to the truth. One is that you're omnipotent. Another is that an omnipotent being tells you what the truth is. Can you think of any others?

Keep fishing. Either the patient being prayed for recovers or doesn't recover. If not, the sincere prayers weren't answered. Unless you’re suggesting God secretly removed the free will of the scientists and the people praying so that the tests would come back negative? Gimme a break.

You seem to believe that free will means God doesn't interfere in the Creation, and this isn't the case. Free will means, you have the choice to obey or disobey God. It doesn't mean you are free from Gods influences. That's the whole idea of prayer, that God is going to exert His influence on creation to change something. God is directly involved in the affairs of men, He sets up Kingdoms, He takes them away. He put you where He wanted you and He will take you out when He has sovereignly planned to do it.

Even if the prayers are sincere, God isn't going to heal everyone. Yes, either way the patient recovers or doesn't recover, and either way, God isn't going to reveal His existence outside of what He has ordained; faith in His Son Jesus Christ. Anyone trying to prove Gods existence any other way will always come away disappointed.

And all of this was written only after the prophesy was fulfilled. A little too convenient.

Actually it was written hundreds of years before hand.

The 70 weeks are not concurrent, first of all.

I know. I'm assuming they were consecutive. How could 70 weeks be concurrent? That makes no sense at all. Even if you meant to say “not consecutive”, what does it mean to declare a time limit of 70 weeks if they're not consecutive? It means nothing. That time limit could extend to today. What's your source for saying they're not concurrent/consecutive/whatever?

This is why I suggested you become more familiar with theology. Yes, you're right, I meant to say consecutive. You would know they were not consecutive if you read the scripture. The prophecy identifies they are not consecutive. Please see this:

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2004/552/

Again, conveniently, this “prediction” doesn't appear in writing until after the fall of Jerusalem.

Jerusalem fell in 70 AD. The gospels were written beforehand. If they were written afterwards, there would have been a mention of the fall of the city, if only to confirm the prophecy, but there is no mention of it in any of the gospels.

I'll rephrase this by saying, that Jesus fulfilled dozens of prophecies about the coming of the Messiah. Clearly, the impact of that Jesus has had on the world matches His claims about who He is.

Which clearly defined prophecies did he fulfil, not including ones that he knew about and could choose to do (like riding on a donkey)?

http://www.godonthe.net/evidence/messiah.htm

Except for all the religions that aren't Christian. They don’t belong to him, and they have surely had enough time to hear his voice.

The world belongs to Christ. The difference between the Lord and the other religions is this:

1 Chronicles 16:26

For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the LORD made the heavens

You really think that’s unique to Christianity? Do you know much about Islam? And I don't mean Western stereotypes of it. I mean, really know how normal Muslim people live their lives.

Muslims don't have a personal relationship with God. Allah keeps them at arms length, and they mostly serve him out of fear. They also have no idea whether they are going to heaven or not. They only hope that at the end of time their good works will add up more than their bad ones. The reason Muslims choose martyrdom is because under Islam it is the only guaranteed way to go to Heaven.

I get it. It’s a test of sincerity. For whom? Who is going to read and understand the results? To whom is the sincerity proven that didn't know it before, requiring a test? I think you’re avoiding admitting it’s God because that would mean there’s something God doesn't know.

Why do metalworkers purify gold? To remove the dross. That's exactly what God is doing when He tests us:

1 Peter 1:6

In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials.

These have come so that your faith--of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire--may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.

>> ^messenger:

stuff

@shinyblurry

Therefore, the question is, how would you tell if you're in a Universe that God designed?

I would test it, if I could. By “God”, I’m assuming you’re still talking about Yahweh specifically, and not just any random god-type entity. If that’s the case, then I’ve already falsified the claim that the Bible is perfect, so that argument is gone. If you’re merely making a deist claim, then I can’t argue with you. I take no position on deism other than if some deity created the universe and set it in motion, I have no reason to believe it cares about humans, and it certainly has made no edicts that I perceive as to how I should live my life.

The real question is, why is either possibility more or less likely than the other? … leap of faith in favor of your atheistic naturalism... you have to discard your assumptions about what you have seen or haven't seen and think about this on a deeper level.

You’re not listening to me. Seriously. I do have ways of determining which story is more likely. Occam’s razor is the best for this problem. The complexities introduced by faith in Yahweh and the Bible are necessarily more complex than the problems they solve. They are also blind faith (I'm talking about the vast majority of the faithful, and about what you're recommending I do), which is willful self-delusion. The theories that physicists and biologists have come up with are quite convincing, especially if you understand how science works.

A created being should expect to find himself existing in an environment capable of creating him.

Agreed. I find myself in an environment in which my species was capable of evolving. It says nothing of how statistically improbable it is.

In the same way, you should be surprised to find yourself to be a created being in a finely tuned Universe. A finely tuned Universe should tip the scales of that evidence, if you are being honest about what you can really prove.

Disagree. I’m lucky that of all the possible combinations of molecules that could have come together to create our terrestrial environment, the right ones came together to create life, then the right DNA strands combined to eventually create me. I’m lucky, sure, but given the length of time we’ve had, there’s no reason I should be surprised, especially when there's no reason to assert that this is the only universe. You ask why multiple universes are more likely than a deity? Because you and I both know for sure there is at least one universe, so positing some more of them is less of a stretch than asserting a self-contradictory entity, alien to our objective experience, defying any consistent and meaningful description, so vastly complex that it cannot be properly understood, and so full of human failings that it looks man-made.

[me:]… it could be that 10^one trillion universes with different physical properties have formed and collapsed, and when a balanced one finally came out of the mix, it stuck around, and here we are.

[you:] It could be, except there is no evidence there is. Why is it you that can imagine an infinite number of hypothetical Universes with no evidence, but you object to supernatural creation as somehow being less plausible than that.

I’m sceptical of all your claims because that’s how I roll. I’m sceptical of everything, especially big claims. It’s the smartest way to avoid being duped. You have been telling me that I must believe in the one true thing that is true that is Yahweh and the Bible and creation because it’s true because it’s true because it’s true because it’s the only possibility. Now, I conceive of another possibility: my 10^trillion universes. You agree it’s possible, so there’s no reason for me to believe yours is necessarily true. If I have to choose between them, the one that doesn’t require the further explanation of a sentient deity more complex than 10^trillion universes is simpler. And even then, I DON’T HAVE TO CHOOSE one or the other. I can remain sceptical. To me, it’s foolish not to.

While we’re talking about being honest with ourselves, I’d like to hear it from you that the following things are *at least technically possible*: that Yahweh doesn’t exist; that your relationship with Yahweh is an illusion created by you inside your head because you are human and human minds are prone to occasional spectacular mistakes; that the Bible was created by deluded humans; that the universe is around 14 billion years old; that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old; that life on Earth started 1-2 billion years ago; and that all species evolved from primitive life forms. To be clear, I’m not asking you to accept them as true or even probable, just state whether this collection of statements is possible or impossible.

Notice what George Wald said?

I notice that you only quote scientists out of context, or when they’re speaking poetically. I guarantee he never said that in a scientific paper. Life may be a wonder, not a miracle.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/

Near the end, you’ll find this gem: “The history of physics has had that a lot, … Certain quantities have seemed inexplicable and fine-tuned, and once we understand them, they don’t seem to [be] so fine-tuned. We have to have some historical perspective.”

If you haven't done so already, watch the first 10-20 minutes of this: http://videosift.com/video/The-God-of-the-Gaps-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson. It's "creationism/intelligent design" laid bare as a position of weakness. Your "fine tuning" trope is part of "intelligent design" and has the same historical flaw.

They acknowledge there are only two possibilities, one being God, but since they hate that possibility more than they hate embracing the anthropic principle, they go with that instead, having absolutely no evidence to base that conclusion on. They simply don't want to acknowledge the obvious, which is that a finely tuned Universe is *much* stronger evidence for an omnipotent God than it is for multiple Universes.

What do you mean, “they hate that possibility”? Why should a scientist hate any possibility? If there were science that pointed to the real existence of God, that’s exactly the way their investigations would go. That’s what motivated early modern scientists – they believed unravelling the laws of the universe by experiment would reveal God’s nature. It was only when the scientific path of experimentation split conclusively away from the biblical account that anybody considered that religious faith and scientific endeavour might become separate enterprises.

As for the “much” stronger evidence, as stated in the article, every time scientists solve a mystery of something they thought was “finely tuned”, they realized that there is a much simpler explanation than God. Evolution, for instance, eliminates the question of "fine tuning" in life. “God” is a metaphor for “things outside my understanding”. Once they move within our understanding, nobody claims that they’re God anymore. And FWIW, some of the most famous scientists ever came to the same "Because God" conclusion, which held until someone else got past it and solved what they couldn't.

So to your conclusion, how do you figure that the appearance of fine tuning—which seems to go away when you look close enough—is stronger evidence? What is your rationale for the weighting so strongly in favour of God? Couldn't it be that we simply don’t know yet how the universe came to be the way it is? To me, that’s actually the most likely scenario, since that’s what’s happened with so many other erroneous theological claims, including by some of science’s greatest minds ever.

A limited temporal creature, trying to disprove Gods existence with his own corrupt reasoning is kind of laughable, isn't it?

Eh??? But in your last nine paragraphs, YOU yourself, a limited temporal creature, have been trying to prove God’s existence with your “fine tuning” argument (corrupt reasoning, like you say), even after you've repeatedly asserted in the other threads that the only possible evidence for God is that he’ll answer our prayers. Why are you bothering? It is laughable how inconsistent you’re being here.

Or perhaps He had sovereignly arranged for only insincere prayers or prayers outside of His will to be prayed for at that time which would give the results of the test the appearance of randomness.

Keep fishing. Either the patient being prayed for recovers or doesn't recover. If not, the sincere prayers weren't answered. Unless you’re suggesting God secretly removed the free will of the scientists and the people praying so that the tests would come back negative? Gimme a break.

The Jews are historically from Israel, and there is archaeological evidence to prove this. The reason they came back to Israel is because it is historically their homeland. Given the opportunity, they would have come back to Israel with or without the bible saying they were entitled to. The point is that they were predicted to come back, not only around the date that they did, but their migration pattern was in the exact order, their currency was predicted, their economic and agricultural condition was predicted, and many other things.

And all of this was written only after the prophesy was fulfilled. A little too convenient.

The 70 weeks are not concurrent, first of all.

I know. I'm assuming they were consecutive. How could 70 weeks be concurrent? That makes no sense at all. Even if you meant to say “not consecutive”, what does it mean to declare a time limit of 70 weeks if they're not consecutive? It means nothing. That time limit could extend to today. What's your source for saying they're not concurrent/consecutive/whatever?

Second, Jesus is the one who predicted the fall of Jerusalem:

Again, conveniently, this “prediction” doesn't appear in writing until after the fall of Jerusalem.

I'll rephrase this by saying, that Jesus fulfilled dozens of prophecies about the coming of the Messiah. Clearly, the impact of that Jesus has had on the world matches His claims about who He is.

Which clearly defined prophecies did he fulfil, not including ones that he knew about and could choose to do (like riding on a donkey)?

Christ speaks, however, and from that moment all generations belong to him.

Except for all the religions that aren't Christian. They don’t belong to him, and they have surely had enough time to hear his voice.

The other founders of religions had not the least conception of this mystic love which forms the essence of Christianity.

You really think that’s unique to Christianity? Do you know much about Islam? And I don't mean Western stereotypes of it. I mean, really know how normal Muslim people live their lives.

The metaphor that is used for testing is that of impurities being refined out of gold or silver. Tests are to prove your sincerity, not necessarily what God knows.

I get it. It’s a test of sincerity. For whom? Who is going to read and understand the results? To whom is the sincerity proven that didn't know it before, requiring a test? I think you’re avoiding admitting it’s God because that would mean there’s something God doesn't know.

>> ^Kalle:

One serious question that bothers me is.. why isnt it possible to use gravity as an energy source?
Would such a machine be a perpetual motion machine?


Gravity is REALLY weak. Like 36 orders of magnitude less than the electromagnetic force. 36 orders of magnitude is massive...larger the the total number of stars in the known universe. For instance, a fridge magnet is defeating the ENTIRE gravitational force of the earth AND the sun. Gravity makes for a great way to bind the macro-universe together, but it is shit as an energy source.

Also, gravity has only one polarity...and it doesn't turn off. So for the EM force, we have 2 poles that can be switched around via electrical current to make lots of different energy related things. But for gravity, you just have one ground state, and once you are there you need to input energy to get away from that ground state...no way around that. However, what has been done and is done in certain areas is to have a closed system where you apply energy at certain time and store that energy for later. The example most commonly used is in dams, where the will pump a large volume of water back up stream (potential energy) and store it (a gravity battery if you will) and release it as a later time when demand is high. This is always a loss based way to make energy; your going to spend more pumping it back up (heat loss and other losses including evaporation) than you will when you get it back...so it is just a way to cause demand shifting towards other hours with additional entropy.

You have 4 fundamental forces to draw energy from; and 3 of those are the only practical ones. Strong (nuclear) force, the EM force, and the gravitational force (the weak force is actually the force that powers the earths core, but isn't useful to use in power generation for a similar reason gravity isn't).

The EM force is what we use in internal combustion engines and electrical motors. Chemical reactions are rearrangements of the electron structures of molecules, which makes gasoline engines possible via liquid to gas expansion pressures. Generators deal with EM fields, polarity and current which is what drives thermal reactors like coal or can drive a car with a motor via conversation of stored electrical energy(just a backwards generator). Nuclear reactors deal with the strong (nuclear) force, and combine that with kinetic/thermodynamic forces of same flavor as coal and other thermal plants.

Even gravity isn't perpetual, the orbits of ALL celestial bodies are unstable. Gravity is thought and reasonably well satisfied to travel in waves. These waves cause turbulence in what would seem calm orbits, slowly breaking them down over time...drawing them closer and closer together. Eventually, all orbits will cause ejection or collision.


As to what energy is best, I personally believe in the power of the strong force, as does the sun . When you are talking about the 4 forces and their ability to make energy for us, the strong force is 6 orders of magnitude greater than other chemical reactions we can make. The EM force is not to much weaker than the strong force, but the practical application of chemical reactions limits us to the electron cloud, making fuels for chemical reactions less energetic by a million to a billion times vs strong force fuels. Now, only fission has been shown to work for energy production currently, but I doubt that will be true forever. If you want LOTS of energy without much waste, you want strong force energy, period. That and the weak force are the 2 prime movers of sustained life on this planet. While the chemistry is what is hard at work DOING life, the strong and weak force provide the energy to sustain that chemistry. Without it, there are no winds, there is no heat in the sky nor from the core, no EM shield from that core. Just a cold, lifeless hunk of metals and gases floating in the weak gravitational force.

Sorry for the rant, energy is my most favorite current subject



(edit, corrected some typos and bad grammar)

@hpqp
I am not at all ashamed of my verbose, self-indulgent dross, so here we go!

Something has to be extra-physical, as least based on our current model. I can fully accept that a brain by itself can receive sensory input, process it against memory, and thus act in a completely human way indistinguishable from a conscious human, but on its own can literally be no more "conscious" than a river flowing down a mountain. Our current view of the physical universe does not tolerate any rational physical explanation of consciousness. Any given moment of human experience - the unified sensory experience and stream of consciousness - does not exist in a single place at a single instant. To suggest that the atoms\molecules\proteins\cells of the brain experience themselves in a unified manner based on their proximity to or electrochemical interaction with each other is magical thinking. Atoms don't do that, and that's all that's there, physically.
I disagree that consciousness is subordinate to cognition in terms of value. Cognition is what makes us who we are and behave as we do, but consciousness is what makes us different from the rest of the jiggling matter in the universe.

A couple of posts back, you challenged my statement about abstinence education as demonstrating a lack of pragmatism. I didn't really address it in my reply, but I'd prefaced it with the understanding that it's not a magical incantation. I know people are still going to have sex, but I suggested that has to be a part of education. People have to know that you can still get pregnant even if you're using the contraceptives that are available. They have to at least know the possibility exists. It's one more thing for them to consider. People are still going to drive recklessly even if you tell them they can crash and kill themselves despite their airbags, seatbelts, and crumple zones, but that doesn't mean it's not worth it to educate them about the possibility. I fail to see how that's not pragmatic.

I didn't reply to your comment about adoption vs abortion because I'm not sure there's anything else to add on either side. As I've said, my beliefs on this are such that even a grossly flawed adoption\orphan care system is preferable to the alternative, even if it means that approximately 10 times the number of children would enter the system than have traditionally been adopted each year. (1.4M abortions annually in the US, ~140K adoptions, but there are several assumptions in that math that wouldn't hold up to scrutiny.) Many right and just things have unpleasant consequences that must be managed. (The typical counter here is that Pro-Lifers tend to also be fiscal\social conservatives and won't fund social services to care for these new individuals they've "protected" into existence. That's just another issue of taking responsibility for the consequences of choices. If they get what they want, they need to be held to account, but it's a separate issue. A related issue, but a separate issue.)

Criminalizing\prohibiting almost any activity results in some degree of risky\dangerous\destructive behavior. Acts must be criminalized because there are individuals who would desire to perform those acts which have been determined to be an unnecessary imposition on the rights of another. Criminalization does not eliminate the desire, but it adds a new factor to consideration. Some will decide the criminalization\prohibition of the act is not sufficient deterrent, but in proceeding, are likely to do so in a different manner than otherwise. The broad consideration is whether the benefits of criminalization\prohibition outweigh the risks posed to\by the percentage who will proceed anyway. Prohibition of alcohol failed the test, I expect the prohibition of certain drugs will be shown to have failed the test..eventually. Incest is illegal, and the "unintended" consequence is freaks locking their families in sheds and basements in horrific conditions, but I think most of us would agree the benefits outweigh the detriment there.

Is putting all would-have-been-aborteds up for adoption abhorrent or absurd? The hump we'll never get over is asking "is it more abhorrent than aborting all of them", because we have different viewpoints on the relative values in play. But is it even a valid question? They won't all be put up for adoption. Some percentage (possibly 5-10 percent) will spontaneously miscarry\abort anyway and some percentage would be raised by a birth parent or by the extended family after all. An initially unwanted pregnancy does not necessarily equate to an unwanted child, for a number of reasons. I do not have statistics on what proportion could be expected to be put up for adoption. Would you happen to? It seems like that would be difficult to extrapolate.

The "'potential' shtick" carries weight in my view because of the uniqueness of the situation. There is no consensus on the "best" way to define when elective abortion is "acceptable". Sagan puts weight on cognition as indicative of personhood. As he states, the Supreme Court set its date based on independent "viability". (More specifically, I feel it should be noted, "potential" viability.) These milestones coincide only by coincidence.
Why is it so easy for us, as you say, to retroproject? And why is this any different from assigning personhood to each of a million individual sperm? For me, it's because of those statistics on miscarriage linked above. The retroprojected "potential" is represented by "percentages". At 3-6 weeks, without deliberate intervention 90% of those masses of cells will go on to become a human being. At 6-12 it's 95%. This is more than strictly "potential", it's nearly guaranteed.

I expect your response will be uncomfortable for both of us, but I wish you would expound on why my "It Gets Better" comparison struck you as inappropriate. Crude, certainly - I'll admit to phrasing it indelicately, even insensitively. I do not think it poorly considered, however. The point of "It Gets Better" is to let LGBT youth know that life does not remain oppressive, negative, and confusing, and that happiness and fulfillment lie ahead if they will only persevere.
It's necessary because as humans, we aren't very good at imagining we'll ever be happy again when surrounded by uncertainty and despair, or especially recognizing the good already around us. We can only see torment, and may not see the point in perpetuating a seemingly-unending chain of suffering when release is so close at hand, though violence against self (or others).
This directly parallels the "quality of life" arguments posed from the pro-choice perspective. They take an isolated slice of life from a theoretical unplanned child and their mother and suggest that this is their lot and that we've increased suffering in the universe, as if no abused child will ever know a greater love, or no poor child will ever laugh and play, and that no mother of an unwanted pregnancy will ever enjoy life again, burdened and poverty-stricken as she is.
As you said, we're expecting a woman to reflect "on what would her and the eventual child’s quality of life be like", but we're so bad at that.
And all that quality-of-life discussion is assuming we've even nailed the demographic on who is seeking abortions in the U.S.
Getting statistics from the Guttmacher Institute, we find that 77% were at or above the federal poverty level and 60% already had at least one child.

On a moral level, absolutely, eugenics is very different debate.
On a practical level, the eugenics angle is relevant because it's indistinguishable from any other elective abortion. Someone who is terminating a pregnancy because their child would be a girl, or gay, or developmentally disabled can very easily say "I'm just not ready for motherhood." And who's to say that's not the mother's prerogative as much as any other elective abortion, if she's considering the future quality of life for herself and the child? "It sucks for girls\gays\downs in today's society and I don't think I can personally handle putting them through that," or more likely "My family and I could never love a child like that, so they would be unloved and I would be miserable for it. This is better for both of us."
Can we write that off as hopefully being yet another edge case? (Keep in mind possibly 65% of individuals seeking abortion declare as Protestant or Catholic, though other statistics show how unreliable "reported religious affiliation" is with regard to actual belief and practice.)

_{"Argumentation"? I have learned a new word today, thanks to hpqp. High five!}

*promote

This is most likely the most AMAZING filament eruption to be caught on video. It is caused by a little process called magnetic reconnection. It's a little process that gives us our solar flares, these filaments, CMEs (Coronal Mass Ejections), auroras, and the possible potential for very dangerous radiation storms every few millennium--give or take a few. Basically, plasma flows along these field lines of magnetism. When things get out of hand, then those field lines distort and change and all of a sudden things get very dangerous (AND sometimes beautiful). The faster the magnetic field changes the faster the particles will travel making them more and more dangerous as the events unfold fast enough giving them more energy (kinetic & heat), which in turn if directed at us means it penetrates much further into our protective field and anything outside of the field, crispy--in the shredded DNA, cells, you name it sense.

Occasionally, Earth's magnetic field breaks down a bit (if I remember why correctly it was a certain "sequence" within our magnetic shield and it reacts badly with the Sun's--don't quote me though, I really need to look it back up again it was a very long time ago I remember this from), if a large solar flare directed towards Earth ever happened before Earth had enough time to fully build back it's strength we would be FAR more in trouble than usual, but this would be a rare event. Usually what happens is that the charged particles follow Earth's magnetic lines and go to the poles, which is the one place on Earth where you do suffer the most radiation from the Sun (basically wherever the poles are as the plasma follows the polarity or "field lines" of Earth's magnetic field). It's also why the closer you are to the poles the better your view is of the aurora as the particles streaming in, if there is a sufficient quantity moving very fast (the more energy, especially kinetic--speed, the farther the penetration into the atmosphere and the lower the aurora becomes visible), will enter the atmosphere and begin to be absorbed by various elements that our atmosphere is compromised of like Nitrogen.

Here's a quick explanation. Basically, the particles collide with atoms of molecules/elements or anything in the higher atmosphere, exciting their electrons into higher energy levels, which is known fundamentally in science as quantum leap/atomic transition/electron transition it's one of the atom's most fundamental abilities dealing with "extra energy" being pushed into a system that wants balance (this is a very common process that happens ALL DAY long, EVERYWHERE around you; it transfers photons essentially--pure energy--BUT, what is the energy in the form of as it's energy level makes it do very many different things; you could see things, what you consider the normal range of light--it's EXACTLY how light goes THROUGH a window--it doesn't go through the window it is transferred via the atoms from one side to the next, this is ALSO why people are trying to get invisibility to work as it just might; HEAT is another one that is transferred all the time--it literally radiates outwards from our bodies and then we are surrounded by excited electrons and the infrared range of light we are putting out, the heat of a human body...or any animal; this goes on and on, it happens everywhere and as I said ALL-THE-TIME, it's perhaps one of the most critical processes and abilities of the atom and how photons also transfer their energy between areas in a direction; a little off-topic information for those that don't realize how much is going on, everywhere, all the time, at any given second...it's a complicated, but beautiful world)), and making them give off light that we see when the charge they've taken on finally returns the molecule/element's electrons to their normal orbits in the electron shell; the color depends on what molecule/element was being bombarded and how much energy was involved from the particle that hit it). This of course transfers all the energy that those particles had and we get a nice light show.

/I thought I'd fill my promote with something useful; ...on why these happen...
//edit-For a little more clarity, grammar and a bit more information that I hope some will appreciate if it helps anyone learn something or atleast go look up some of this and learn some on their own; taking an interest in science, it's one of the most important things in the world that we have.
///Spreading science is just as important; it's the one literal thing we do/use that has ever allowed us to deal with the worst problems we have: fear, pain, death, disease, sorrow, despair, ignorance, etc... Science IS the light in the dark. It is our best hope for mankind's continued existence and a good life. It is the single most important activity we now do as a group; it's our savior from us and what's out there...

@hpqp
Good points, all.
However, the "cognition is sacred" (as opposed to "human life is sacred") viewpoint has a hole in it about the size of human consciousness. (Oh man, tangent time!) Some loudly proclaim the presence of a divine soul or spirit, but there is certainly something else there, aside from the physical form.
Obviously, human (and for that matter animal) experience and behavior is influenced by the physical brain and its processes. Damage to it predictably and reproducibly changes behavior and perception. As much as some of us would like to think otherwise, the physical structure and function of the brain influences who we are and what we do as individuals. I would honestly have no problem accepting that the physical universe as we've modeled it functions precisely as it has, autonomously. (Right down to fruitless debates between individuals on the Internet.) Evolution is a real thing. The brain has developed as yet another beneficial mutation that promotes the propagation of its host organism. Input in, behavior out, feedback loop. Click click click, ding.
But the problem is that we experience this. Somehow this mass of individual cells (and below that individual molecules, atoms, quarks) experiences itself in a unified manner, or rather something experiences this mass of matter in a unified manner. No matter how far down you track it, there's no physical accommodation for consciousness. To give a specific example, the cells in the eye detect light (intensity and wavelength) by electrochemical stimulation. The binary "yes\no" of stimulation is routed through the thalamus in individual axons, physically separated in space, to the visual cortex, where it's propagated and multiplied through a matrix of connections, but all individual cells, and all just ticking on and off based on chemical and electrical thresholds. The visual field is essentially painted as a physical map across a region of the brain, but somehow, the entire image is experienced at once. Cognition is necessarily distinct from consciousness.

What this means, practically, is that we must attribute value to cognition and consciousness separately.
Cognition may not be completely understood, but we can explain it in increasingly specific terms, and it seems that we'll be able to unravel how the brain works within the current model. It absolutely has a value. We consider a person who is "a vegetable" to have little to no current or expected quality of life, and generally are comfortable making the decision to "pull the plug".
Consciousness, however, is what we believe makes us special in the universe, despite being completely empty from a theoretical standpoint. If sensory input, memory, and behavioral responses are strictly a function of the material, then stripped of those our "unified experience" is completely undetectable\untestable. We have no way of knowing if our neighbor is a meaty automaton or a conscious being, but we assume. Which is precisely why it's special. It's obviously extra-physical. Perhaps @gorillaman's tomatobaby (that is, the newborn which he says is without Mind) has a consciousness, but it isn't obvious because the physical structure is insufficient for meaningful manifestation. I have difficulty accepting that consciousness, empty though it is on its own, is without value. "So what," though, right? If you can't detect it in anyone but yourself, what use is it in this discussion? Clearly, there IS something about the structure or function of the brain that's conducive to consciousness. We are only conscious of what the brain is conscious of and what it has conceived of within its bounds. So the brain at least is important, but it's not the whole point.
Anyway, there's that tangent.

The "stream of potential life" argument has its limits. Any given sperm or egg is exceedingly unlikely to develop into a human. For a single fertilized egg, the odds shift dramatically. That's why people seek abortions, because if they don't do something, they're probably going to have a baby. The probability of "brewin' a human" is pretty good once you're actually pregnant. The "potential for human life" is very high, which is why you can even make the quality of life argument.

Obviously, you realize how those on the anti-abortion side of the debate react when someone who is...let's say abortion-tolerant ("pro-abortion" overstates it for just about anyone, I suspect) says that they're considering the "quality of life" of the prospective child in their calculus. They get this mental image: "Your mother and I think you'll both be better off this way, trust me. *sound of a meatball in a blender*"
I appreciate that we're trying to minimize suffering in the world and promote goodness, but I think it's over-reaching to paint every potential abortion (or even most) as a tragic tale of suffering simply because the parent wasn't expecting parenthood. Quality of life is much more nuanced. Many wonderful humans have risen from squalor and suffering and will tell you earnestly they believe that background made them stronger\wiser\more empathetic\special. Many parents who were devastated to learn they were pregnant love their unexpected children. And holy crap, kids with Downs, man. What's the quality of life for them and their parents? Terribly challenging and terribly rewarding.
No, I'm not trying to paint rainbows over economic hardship and child abuse and say that "everything's going to be finnnnneeee", but quality of life is a personal decision and it's unpredictable. Isn't that what "It Gets Better" is all about? "Things may seem grim and terrible now, but don't kill yourself just yet, you're going to miss out on some awesome stuff."

Hrm. Thus far we've really been framing abortion as being about "unready" parents, probably because the discussion started on the "mother can choose to have sex" angle.
You've got to wonder how confused this issue would get if we could detect genetically if a fetus might be homosexual. Would Christians loosen their intolerance for abortion if it meant not having a "gay baby"? (Even if it would fly in the face of their belief that homosexuality is a choice.) Would pro-choicer's take a second look at the availability of abortion? Would it still be "one of those terrible things that happens in a free society"?

On western aid, you're spot on. It's so easy to throw money at a problem and pretend we're helping. Humanitarian aid does nothing if we're not promoting and facilitating self-sufficiency. Some people just need a little help getting by until they're back on their feet, but some communities need a jump-start. As you say, they need practical education. I've only been on handful of humanitarian missions myself, so I give more financially than I do of my sweat, but I'm careful to evaluate HOW the organizations I give to use the funds. Are they just shipping food or are they teaching people how to live for themselves and providing the resources to get started? Sure, some giving is necessary. It's impossible for someone to think about sustainable farming and simple industry if they're dying from cholera or starving to death.

I didn't want to join this tired discussion but decency requires someone oppose the appalling 'birth is magic - never kill a newborn' consensus. This is superstitious nonsense; wads of animal meat aren't supernaturally imbued with humanity by being shoved through a cunthole.

There's confusion and arbitrariness everywhere on this simple topic because nobody bothers to ground their moral sense in any kind of rational foundation. They look at a cute baby and their instincts and emotions destroy any hope of intelligent thought. Forget abortion, stop thinking about babies and heartbeats, it's moronic; go back and work on your basic understanding of ethics.

Why don't we kill people? Is it because we haven't been given a mandate; that there's no explicit cosmic distinction to separate one lump of matter from another, giving one the right to disrupt the other? Then we're all just bits of physics bumping into each other, and there's still no reason to prefer a foetus to its host; no more than a cancer sufferer to their tumour or indeed the whole of humanity to a grain of sand.
Is it because they're alive? Then we'd better learn to photosynthesise, because our existence requires the daily destruction of life. Life has no inherent value. It's just one peculiar way that our universe is shaped by its bizarre physical laws, with no mystery or significance - unapprehending molecules forced into the illusion of purpose.
Is it because they're human? Why do we value that species, is it only that it happens to be our own, or is there some particular quality of humanity beside their kind that requires moral treatment? There must be, or else to be consistent we would say that when a rock shatters another it commits a terrible crime among rocks, because one may not harm ones own kind.
Isn't it that we don't kill people because we recognise that the aggregation of their perception and understanding of reality, their cognitive excellence and continuity of personal identity gives rise to the new phenomenon of Mind - I give Mind a capital letter in that silly and somewhat religious way because it is the absolute centre and cause of moral necessity; without it there is simply no reason to be moral. Only by the application of Mind can there be a reality to be moral in. Mind is the universal source of all meaning.

So the question you ask yourself when considering the rights of a creature is 'what is the condition of its intellect; to what extent is it conscious; is it Mind?'

Everybody already agrees with me if they had the sense to see it. If I could produce a tomato with a mind equivalent to a human, which I was able to demonstrate could think and talk and feel and reason like any one of us, would we be happy to chop it into a salad? What about a human with the mind of a tomato? Well they already exist; they're called babies.

Well, yeah, that's essentially what he said. There's no meaning to life apart from what we meaning we give it. Some people find that depressing. Some, like myself, do not. Let's just have a bit of craic!>> ^shinyblurry:

You'll notice he never actually gave a reason why one particular version of reality should be preferred to another. He gave an example of choosing to support gay marriage to create a fair and just society, which of course are value judgments about the ideal way to live. There is no reasoning as to why we should make those judgments in the first place. All he said was, if you realize that we are the final arbiters of right and wrong (which isn't true, but for the sake of argument I'll concede this), "chances are" that you would be more apt to choose gay marriage than not. That is simply another unsubstantiated value judgment, and does not provide a foundation of reasoning to support the conclusion; namely, that we can derive meaning and purpose from telling stories about molecules in motion. That this idea of extracting meaning from cold, dead matter will ever be anything more than a morass of personal preferences arbitrarily defined by a group consensus, the definition being subject to change at any time according to the whims of its members. I advance that if meaning itself is subject to our whims, then there is no actual meaning to anything after all, and the only solution left is nihilism.

You'll notice he never actually gave a reason why one particular version of reality should be preferred to another. He gave an example of choosing to support gay marriage to create a fair and just society, which of course are value judgments about the ideal way to live. There is no reasoning as to why we should make those judgments in the first place. All he said was, if you realize that we are the final arbiters of right and wrong (which isn't true, but for the sake of argument I'll concede this), "chances are" that you would be more apt to choose gay marriage than not. That is simply another unsubstantiated value judgment, and does not provide a foundation of reasoning to support the conclusion; namely, that we can derive meaning and purpose from telling stories about molecules in motion. That this idea of extracting meaning from cold, dead matter will ever be anything more than a morass of personal preferences arbitrarily defined by a group consensus, the definition being subject to change at any time according to the whims of its members. I advance that if meaning itself is subject to our whims, then there is no actual meaning to anything after all, and the only solution left is nihilism.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's not three different Gods..it's three persons, one God. There is only one God, and that
God is three persons. How can God be three persons at the same time? Perhaps because He is
hyper-dimensional, although I don't think that would be an adequate description in reality. I think though that the concept itself illuminates the potential differences between His existence and ours.
>> ^Bruti79:
>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^Bruti79:
>> ^shinyblurry:

Jesus and the Father are not the same person. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, but they are both God. God is three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Wait, so it's a grammatical thing? How did god use improper grammar in the bible?

You could think of it like water..it can be liquid, ice and vapor..but it is still water. That is analogous to the Holy Trinity.

Even in three different states, the same water molecules can't exist in different states at the same time. That's an analogy though. I want to know the true answer. Either it's bad grammar, or how can god be three different things at the same time, when other things can't? What about only worshiping the one true god, when this one is three separate god beings? Why isn't that hypocritical?



Do you mean "persons" like "people?" Of not, what is your definition of a person? If so, if they are people, then it/they/he must sin right? But if so, do they just punish each other for their sins? And if so, do they use paper/rock/scissors? Because I would think that's the most effective way of doing things.

It's not three different Gods..it's three persons, one God. There is only one God, and that
God is three persons. How can God be three persons at the same time? Perhaps because He is
hyper-dimensional, although I don't think that would be an adequate description in reality. I think though that the concept itself illuminates the potential differences between His existence and ours.

>> ^Bruti79:

>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^Bruti79:
>> ^shinyblurry:

Jesus and the Father are not the same person. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, but they are both God. God is three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Wait, so it's a grammatical thing? How did god use improper grammar in the bible?

You could think of it like water..it can be liquid, ice and vapor..but it is still water. That is analogous to the Holy Trinity.

Even in three different states, the same water molecules can't exist in different states at the same time. That's an analogy though. I want to know the true answer. Either it's bad grammar, or how can god be three different things at the same time, when other things can't? What about only worshiping the one true god, when this one is three separate god beings? Why isn't that hypocritical?

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^Bruti79:
>> ^shinyblurry:

Jesus and the Father are not the same person. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, but they are both God. God is three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Wait, so it's a grammatical thing? How did god use improper grammar in the bible?

You could think of it like water..it can be liquid, ice and vapor..but it is still water. That is analogous to the Holy Trinity.


Even in three different states, the same water molecules can't exist in different states at the same time. That's an analogy though. I want to know the true answer. Either it's bad grammar, or how can god be three different things at the same time, when other things can't? What about only worshiping the one true god, when this one is three separate god beings? Why isn't that hypocritical?