Is there an order in the Universe?

[jem]

I fail to see how the quote I desire mercy not sacrifice dismisses you of the charge of taking the Gods name as your handle.

Never the less I am glad I looked up your quote I desire mercy not sacrifice.


By the way I am not innocent. That i know for sure. As a human being - which I am I am prone to failure and sometimes seperate myself from God in thought and deeds.

Which my friend is the true meaning of sin. If for some reason I thought I could live my life as well as God perhaps I could think like you... Ah but that is the catch for that would be one of the gravest sins to think I was on Gods level.

 

[jem]

Stu you either cleverly or unintelligently refused to understand my argument is different than ID in general.

I have not argued for Intelligent design per se. I have spoken of the anthropic principle.

By the way I referenced the best minds in physics. Not any general bonehead who calls himself a scientist. It will take years to educate them with the current understandings of the best minds in physics.

Additionally, I do not think the cite you gave is as up to date as wikipedia article on the anthropic principle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

So Stu once again try addressing the point.

 

[acronym]

Quote from jem:

For the person whose handle is a little bit of an abomination.


without the sacrifice of the cross the empty tomb would be an empty thing.

What sacrifice?
He was murdered by the state, along with thousands of others.
Whom beleived they were following his lead, btw. Brilliant strategy.

 

[jem]

Quote from acronym:

What sacrifice?
He was murdered by the state, along with thousands of others.
Whom beleived they were following his lead, btw. Brilliant strategy.

I dont think you have any idea about what you are saying.

If if you do not follow the tenants of Christianity surely you understand the concept.

I will take a bet and assume you understand jewish conccepts.

Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son on Mount Moriah.

Moses said if you take the blood of an unblemished e lamb and place on the sides and the top of the door jamb (shape of a cross) then eat the lamb - death will passover.

Isaiah forteold of the suffering servent.

So as Abraham had almost sacrificed his only son God later did sacrifice his son (and himself) on the same mount so that people could have eternal life.

By the way in case you missed the movie the suffering on the cross was a pretty intense sacrifice.

 

[acronym]

Quote from jem:


If if you do not follow the tenants of Christianity surely you understand the concept.

I will take a bet and assume you understand jewish conccepts.


By the way in case you missed the movie the suffering on the cross was a pretty intense sacrifice.

If i DONT follow the concepts.....baffled.
No, he was murdered for political and ideological reasons.
It was an intense MURDER , not a sacrifice, though he may have thought so, or others seem to have .

Perhaps meeting a brutal, and horrific slaughter, with dignity and understanding is the penultimate grace of humankind, but it kind of misses the point a bit for mine.

I tried to study a bit of kabbalah stuff at one point, but again, it missed the point entirely to my way of thinking, so i cant say i understand jewish concepts, whatever that means, as such.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

Stu you either cleverly or unintelligently refused to understand my argument is different than ID in general.

I have not argued for Intelligent design per se. I have spoken of the anthropic principle.

By the way I referenced the best minds in physics. Not any general bonehead who calls himself a scientist. It will take years to educate them with the current understandings of the best minds in physics.

Additionally, I do not think the cite you gave is as up to date as wikipedia article on the anthropic principle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

So Stu once again try addressing the point.

You have spoken wrongly about the anthropic principle.
You said because of it physics admits the universe is fined tuned. You are wrong. Neither physics nor science states any such thing.

You have based your argument for that upon one particular scientist you quote who is simply saying this - to paraphrase - if we don't get an explanation for fine tuning we will be hard pressed to have an explanation for fine tuning.

From that quote you read into it and then say this about it...
jem : If you really understand what the best minds in physics are saying - it is this - We as scientists must admit our universe must have been designed. (Given our current scientific understanding.)

On the strength of a single quote which is essentially saying no explanation is no explanation, you rushed to wrongly state what is to be understood and what physics 'admits'.

In one leap of exuberant fantasizing you convert an expression of 'non explanation means being hard pressed to explain' , into meaning "the best minds" in science and physics are saying the universe must have been designed. So your anthropic argument is - no explanation = designed.

Not talking about intelligent design per se?
Making certain pseudo-scientific conclusions drawn from the anthropic principle or sometimes even from a single quote, is the style of ID'ers. Simply because of the words 'fine tuned' there is a mindless race to attach the conclusion Godidit.

 

[jem]

This is my last post with you on the subject.

Once again -- I give you a quote from the guy who invented string theory. I request that you go on the internet and see for yourself the state of science. I have no need to give your more quotes, one is sufficient to prove my point because you have come back with nothing.

Instead you choose to argue like a little kid without any backup.


I already know there are some scientists who refute what Susskind says. They feel he has made errors. if you had half a brain you would have crafted a strong argument. But you know that I know if you actually did the work, you would see that most physicists now understand that the arguments against the anthropic principle are speculative. Just like it says in the Wikipedia article on the anthropic principle I cited for you

 

[jem]

Quote from acronym:

If i DONT follow the concepts.....baffled.
No, he was murdered for political and ideological reasons.
It was an intense MURDER , not a sacrifice, though he may have thought so, or others seem to have .

Perhaps meeting a brutal, and horrific slaughter, with dignity and understanding is the penultimate grace of humankind, but it kind of misses the point a bit for mine.

I tried to study a bit of kabbalah stuff at one point, but again, it missed the point entirely to my way of thinking, so i cant say i understand jewish concepts, whatever that means, as such.

What about a murder excludes the possiblility of sacrifice by the murdered individual or God the father? (given that you are operating withing the concept of Christian thought?)

 

[I am...]

Quote from jem:

I fail to see how the quote I desire mercy not sacrifice dismisses you of the charge of taking the Gods name as your handle.

You are forgiven of the charge.

Blessings,

Jesus

 

[I am...]

Quote from jem:

What about a murder excludes the possiblility of sacrifice by the murdered individual or God the father? (given that you are operating withing the concept of Christian thought?)

I "sit" at the right hand of my Father with all power over Heaven and earth. What do you think I or my Father sacrificed?

Jesus