How God Creates

[Mazzy]

Can we move on? Mazzy has admitted, at least for this discussion, that God is not energy. Let's get back to the topic.

Thankyou. Indeed the substance of my post has not been addressed. I suggest instant creation, particularly of life, is more plausible than theories around abiogeneis and TOE.

See Mazzy? I'm not completely useless as a moderator.

Do you accept theories around TOE and that life arose without the hand of God?

[RickD]

Can we move on? Mazzy has admitted, at least for this discussion, that God is not energy. Let's get back to the topic.

Thankyou. Indeed the substance of my post has not been addressed. I suggest instant creation, particularly of life, is more plausible than theories around abiogeneis and TOE.

See Mazzy? I'm not completely useless as a moderator.

Do you accept theories around TOE and that life arose without the hand of God?

I no longer conflate evolution and abiogenesis, if that helps any.

[Mazzy]

Sorry Rick and sorry to you too Mazzy...
Sometimes my patience runs out and it shouldn't and I have been debating atheists a little too much and I see a "trouble maker" around every corner.
I apologize for being short tempered Mazzy.

No need to apologize. I pray for God to give me a milder spirit. I even took up going to church. I am still waiting for that miracle to happen!

[Mazzy]

Can we move on? Mazzy has admitted, at least for this discussion, that God is not energy. Let's get back to the topic.

Thankyou. Indeed the substance of my post has not been addressed. I suggest instant creation, particularly of life, is more plausible than theories around abiogeneis and TOE.

See Mazzy? I'm not completely useless as a moderator.

Do you accept theories around TOE and that life arose without the hand of God?

I no longer conflate evolution and abiogenesis, if that helps any.

Then at least, we may both agree that God has the ability to create life fully formed.

[RickD]

Mazzy wrote:
Then at least, we may both agree that God has the ability to create life fully formed.

I believe God created Adam fully formed.

[Audie]

Mazzy wrote:
Then at least, we may both agree that God has the ability to create life fully formed.

I believe God created Adam fully formed.

How long ago would you say that was, and, were there any humans on earth before that time?

[RickD]

Mazzy wrote:
Then at least, we may both agree that God has the ability to create life fully formed.

I believe God created Adam fully formed.

How long ago would you say that was, and, were there any humans on earth before that time?

I really don't know how long ago. I haven't studied it enough to know.

And I believe Adam was the first human. Unless someone can show an argument that would reconcile him not being the first, with scripture, then I'm sticking to what I believe scripture says. From what I've read scientifically, I'm not convinced Adam wasn't the first.

Whether or not Adam was the first human, I believe he was specially created.

[Audie]

Mazzy wrote:
Then at least, we may both agree that God has the ability to create life fully formed.

I believe God created Adam fully formed.

How long ago would you say that was, and, were there any humans on earth before that time?

I really don't know how long ago. I haven't studied it enough to know.

And I believe Adam was the first human. Unless someone can show an argument that would reconcile him not being the first, with scripture, then I'm sticking to what I believe scripture says. From what I've read scientifically, I'm not convinced Adam wasn't the first.

Whether or not Adam was the first human, I believe he was specially created.

There were people using fire around a million years ago, tho they didnt look quite like who you'd (normally) see on the subway. Too much brow ridge.

I dont do reconciling scripture, but for those who are Christians, there are plenty who find they can adjust their take on the Bible with what can be learned from outside sources.

A fertilized egg is 'fully formed" and fully human. It is going to change and grow, something we all do through our entire lives. There isnt a point at which one can say, 'this is it".

That Adam could be the first person to receive a soul and be in contact with God is
one way to see it. Sounds reasonable to me.

Given that humans deeply predate "Biblical" times, what do you think of that way of seeing it?

[Kurieuo]

Audie, does really it matter to you? Seriously now.
Christianity lives or dies on Christ Himself.
That should be your starting place.

Nonetheless, here is a time frame that many Day-Age proponents (which Rick identifies as) would go with:
http://www.reasons.org/files/articles/c ... 201107.pdf

[Audie]

Audie, does really it matter to you? Seriously now.
Christianity lives or dies on Christ Himself.
That should be your starting place.

Nonetheless, here is a time frame that many Day-Age proponents (which Rick identifies as) would go with:
http://www.reasons.org/files/articles/c ... 201107.pdf

Of course it doesnt matter to me, I am just practicing.

[Mazzy]

Mazzy wrote:
Then at least, we may both agree that God has the ability to create life fully formed.

I believe God created Adam fully formed.

How long ago would you say that was, and, were there any humans on earth before that time?

I really don't know how long ago. I haven't studied it enough to know.

And I believe Adam was the first human. Unless someone can show an argument that would reconcile him not being the first, with scripture, then I'm sticking to what I believe scripture says. From what I've read scientifically, I'm not convinced Adam wasn't the first.

Whether or not Adam was the first human, I believe he was specially created.

There were people using fire around a million years ago, tho they didnt look quite like who you'd (normally) see on the subway. Too much brow ridge.

I dont do reconciling scripture, but for those who are Christians, there are plenty who find they can adjust their take on the Bible with what can be learned from outside sources.

A fertilized egg is 'fully formed" and fully human. It is going to change and grow, something we all do through our entire lives. There isnt a point at which one can say, 'this is it".

That Adam could be the first person to receive a soul and be in contact with God is
one way to see it. Sounds reasonable to me.

Given that humans deeply predate "Biblical" times, what do you think of that way of seeing it?

Humans only predate biblical times if one has faith in current dating methods. The other point is that many Christians take genesis use of the term father as being a fore father, not necessarily the direct father of a son. That means that mankind could be 200,000 years old and biblical text credible remaining in line with current dating methods.

An egg may be considered fully formed. Unfortunately that egg also contains RNA/DNA and proteins as well as being one half of a complex factory of reproduction.

If the case for evolution was credibly established then perhaps one may suggest erectus was an animal without a soul or chance of resurrection. It seems a little far fetched to me. It is more plausible that elements were arranged by a mighty creator in the exact arrangement required to produce a life form, then animated with the breath of life.

[TheQuestor]

So do you have faith in current dating methods? And if you do not, how old is the Earth, and the human species?

[Starhunter]

I wonder how a person can really say what God can or cannot do?

As for matter and energy, the law that they cannot be created or destroyed is a human construct, based on observation and calculations.

It cannot be proved to be true. Possibly, it will be disproved.

God by His very nature of BEING God can NOT change because to suggest God can change is to state that God there is something incomplete or imperfect or some NEED that God has that requires Him to change.
It isn't a question of CAN God change, it is a question of WHY would God change? into what? to do what? that He can't already do or be?
It doesn't make any sense to suggest God can change.
As for energy, we know that energy is not God because energy has no intellect or will or intention other than what it is given.
God has energy, can even BE energy but is NOT JUST energy anymore than He is just intention or just spirit.

The unchanging God. This is one key to understanding the nature of the universe and how it was created. It will always be a mystery, but that does not mean we cannot form ideas of the truth now, and benefit from that knowledge by being able to predict the behavior or state of existence of many things we can observe in nature.

God does not change in character, and while He has not revealed His physical existence or nature of His existence, simply because there is no concept that will fit into the mind of man, He has revealed who He is, in heart and personality. This knowledge opens up the universe from one perspective, and tells us that every intention of any part of creation is for love. So to look up there and say things like, to quote an idiot, "the universe is full of dark and malevolent forces" is a lie.

So there are definite things we can say about God and about His creation, based on two things, our faith in Who He is, and our observation of those things we believe from Him.
It is His will that we do this, so that the world around us becomes the evidence of His immediate works.

[Starhunter]

In relation to the thread topic, there are proven and observed physics that attest that a huge amount of energy/light, which God is able to manipulate, and therefore, can produce matter in an instant. This has been achieved in the matter accelerator. If it is theoretically possible to teleport matter, and matter can be created by a huge source of energy/light, then I suggest it is theoretically possible for a superior being to use matter to make, not only the universe, but also plants and animals as life consists of arranged particles/elements.

Here is a link that speaks to some work being done at the US air force base on teleportation. This work looks into matter being the sum total of its elements and being able to be reconfigured at another point.

http://fas.org/sgp/eprint/teleport.pdf

To add to my stance on Gods ability to use energy to create matter in an instant, I argue that all current theoretical hypothesis in relation to abiogenes are not plausible given that DNA, RNA and the current one, proteins first, require a host. It appears to be plausible that God created instantly. We have the physics and the theoretical framework already. The Host must come first, not an imagined 'primitive' cell. There is nothing primitive about even single celled life, a complex factory of reproduction. IOW life arising without the hand of God, or life arising by natural processes that does not require a designer appears to be impossible.

For theists, we also have testimony that Jesus was able to create/multiply bread and fish as well as bring the dead to life. So even in an earthy form, Jesus was able to call on an amazing knowledge of physics.

Yes, God uses the natural for the natural. He uses the tools He has placed in nature to govern it. So yes, Jesus had a very deep understanding of nature and science. He could have said things which would have baffled science, but chose not to go there, seeing that other things were more urgent.
On another level He would use natural means to heal. Such as using clay to rub off a growth over a blind man's eyes.

[Starhunter]

Ok, for the sake of this discussion, God is not energy.

Consider yourself warned.
Repeat that posting again and I will assume that you ARE trying to get yourself banned.

My patience is only so much and I will no tolerate you posting and posting the same thing over and over again when it has already been addressed.

For the last time, no one is arguing that God CAN ( and has) used energy, no one arguing that God can ( and has) manipulated energy.
No one is arguing against that at all.
The discussion got here when YOU stated that God IS energy.

The word energy has no boundaries, so it is OK to think of God as the ultimate energy. However if the idea of energy is reduced to a spark in the toaster, no.