Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01
From: Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD (nospam6_at_heartmdphd.com)
Date: 10/12/04
- Next message: Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD: "Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01"
- Previous message: menu boy: "Re: rapid heart rate"
- In reply to: Bob (this one): "Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01"
- Next in thread: MU: "Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01"
- Reply: MU: "Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 12 Oct 2004 14:42:27 -0700
"Bob (this one)" <Bob@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<10mnpgtb2qd4i16@corp.supernews.com>...
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > Happy Dog wrote:
> >
> >><snip> It's clear that you believe
> >>that god can make a rock too heavy to lift and lift it.
> >
> > Speaking as one who is well versed in physics, lifting something is defined by
> > both frame of reference and exerting an opposing force that exceeds a
> > gravitational force.
>
> As usual, Andrew misses the entire point to create his own irrelevant
> analysis. It's not about rocks or force or frame of reference. It's
> about mututally exclusive terms. It's about impossibility by
> definition.
In truth, with God all things are possible.
> It's about ideas.
This is about the truth.
> As for that analysis about physics, it's as flawed and deliberately
> narrow as the rest of the charade in this thread. The question might
> be more broadly framed as "Can God make an immovable object and then
> move it?"
Answer: Yes. God is omnipotent which means He is infinitely capable
of doing anything.
> To make it easy to grasp, "move" means simply to locate it
> somewhere other than where it started, in or out of the universe. No
> direction, no gravitation, no examination of forces. Just have it be
> otherwhere at the end.
When God makes an immovable object, by your definition he has already
moved it. He has moved it from nonexistence to existence.
> It's the old immovable object versus the irresistible force conundrum.
> One must be falsely defined at their confrontation.
In truth, what is flawed is the logic that a mortal uses to try to
describe (and thereby limit) God.
> And if it's God
> who is to do both the construction of the object and wield the power,
> one part must be deficient in fact.
Incorrect. What is deficient is no part of God but every part the
logic man uses to describe God.
The appropriate analogy here would be someone using a yardstick to try
to measure the span of our galaxy.
> > Our heavenly Father is creator of everything, the universe, the natural laws of
> > the universe, and time. He unifies all the forces of the universe. Such an
> > incredible omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent Entity is greater than any frame
> > of reference or force in this universe. A frame of reference can be chosen to
> > define the movement of us mere mortals who are infinitesimally smaller than
> > Him. There is no such frame of reference for God. He is simply too big and too
> > all encompassing and too all powerful.
>
> This is a wonderful premise from which to say *anything* about God. If
> it's accepted as a reasonable beginning, there's nothing left to say;
> all further assertions proceed from it to any conclusion desired by
> the person speaking.
>
> If, OTOH, the premise is seen merely as a statement of one person's
> faith and, as such, separate from logic or reason, then anything that
> proceeds from it can be dismissed as the mouthings of the besotted. If
> some bits of evidence can be offered, some part of it may be accepted,
> but the entire concept must pass muster as reasonable and believable
> for it to be accepted as offered.
The truth stands.
> So, Andrew, can God make something simultaneously nothing?
If you mean "can God make something simultaneously out of nothing" the
answer would be "Yes."
> How could
> that be?
>From infinite power and energy can come infinite matter, space, and
time.
> It is or it is not at this moment.
God *is* at all moments in all time and in all space.
> >>That's faith.
> >
> > Actually, understanding what I just wrote requires only a basic understanding of
> > simple physics.
>
> Actually, it has nothing to do with physics at all.
It seem you don't have an understanding of simple physics.
> It has to do with
> the meaning of identity. It has to do with mutual exclusivity. It has
> to do with leaving the realm of overblown rhetoric and entering the
> realm of the practical and testable.
You remind me of the boy with a yardstick set on measuring the
dimensions of our galaxy.
> >>Not truth.
> >>
> > It seems you have no ability to discern the truth.
>
> It doesn't seem, it's fact, that Andrew makes claims and casts
> aspersions he can't support.
There is no need to prove what one discerns.
> Bob
You remain in my prayers, dear Bob whom I love, in Christ's holy name.
May you accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, someday, so
that you too will escape satan's rule and torment of your soul after
you die.
Because God's Word has clearly condemned you
(http://makeashorterlink.com/?G33F51E69), please do consider the OP
before it is too late:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
-- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ ** Who is the humblest person in the universe? http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048 What is all this about? http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48 Is this spam? http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
- Next message: Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD: "Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01"
- Previous message: menu boy: "Re: rapid heart rate"
- In reply to: Bob (this one): "Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01"
- Next in thread: MU: "Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01"
- Reply: MU: "Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
