Evidence for God from Science

Er.. Colossians 1:17

Back to redefining words again, I see.

So,

"In him all things hold together" really doesn't mean that Christ, as Creator sustains all things. You say it really means that the universe exists inside Christ.

Ok. Won't argue with that.

RickD wrote:Back to redefining words again, I see.

So,

"In him all things hold together" really doesn't mean that Christ, as Creator sustains all things. You say it really means that the universe exists inside Christ.

Ok. Won't argue with that.

How am I redefining words?
You are putting words in my mouth. Christ as Creator sustains all things; all things are within Him.

Mallz wrote:

RickD wrote:Back to redefining words again, I see.

So,

"In him all things hold together" really doesn't mean that Christ, as Creator sustains all things. You say it really means that the universe exists inside Christ.

Ok. Won't argue with that.

How am I redefining words?
You are putting words in my mouth. Christ as Creator sustains all things; all things are within Him.

Within him figuratively. Not literally. God is literally outside the universe He created. Although He did choose to enter creation at the time of the incarnation, that doesn't mean God is part of creation.

Here, let's see if I can word this properly:

1) God is Spirit

2) God created the universe, and all that physically exists

3) The spiritual existed before the physical. So, they can't be the same thing. Something cannot be the thing it created.

And my point discussing this whole issue, is to show that there is a spiritual realm that is separate from the physical. Which gets to the point that miracles, however rare, aren't able to be known by the senses, because miracles go beyond the physical, or beyond the natural. And are therefore supernatural.

BEFORE the Creation existed, God always had. The fact that He stepped PHYSICALLY into His subsequent Creation, does not make it more than a created thing that He has physically entered, and retained.

So you're a materialist?

Mallz wrote:So you're a materialist?

p.s. I don't equate physical with spiritual. You're putting more words in my mouth.

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:You'll have to ask the pope!

Until unless they allow a definitive test, the rest of this is
just blather, to those who are not already sold on the whole story.

One can find equally compelling and detailed arguments for ye flood,
and many another "science v bible" topic.

Audi I know that Hugh is going to disagree with me here but many an expert on the shroud are saying that there will be problems with dating this even if they do allow a second c14 test fir many reasons .
Now we know for instance that the Dead Sea scroll was dating accurately but it was much better stored then the shroud , plus the shroud had a restoration done on it .

Mallz wrote:

Mallz wrote:So you're a materialist?

p.s. I don't equate physical with spiritual. You're putting more words in my mouth.

If you don't equate physical and spiritual, then what did you mean when you said the part I underlined:

Mallz wrote:
For myself (and I suspect Hugh), it's just.. silly?
Something we can't explain with current natural/scientific knowledge is miraculous? Man.. guess we all had miraculous healing abilities that went away when we figured out how the body heals itself..
And the underlined is silly, too, and presumptuous. Guess at one time light from the sun was a miracle that made things grow, too. There isn't a separation between physical and spiritual. There is spiritual without physical, though. Anyways, I see YHWH using Himself from 'thought to form' to work in our existence. No magic. There's a way He does things, we just don't know most of it. And that gets attributed to miraculous 'magic'.

Doesn't "no separation" mean they are the same?

bippy123 wrote:

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:You'll have to ask the pope!

Until unless they allow a definitive test, the rest of this is
just blather, to those who are not already sold on the whole story.

One can find equally compelling and detailed arguments for ye flood,
and many another "science v bible" topic.

Audi I know that Hugh is going to disagree with me here but many an expert on the shroud are saying that there will be problems with dating this even if they do allow a second c14 test fir many reasons .
Now we know for instance that the Dead Sea scroll was dating accurately but it was much better stored then the shroud , plus the shroud had a restoration done on it .

All true, it may be impossible to get a good date no matter what.

What impact might the fires it has been exposed to, have, as to any C-14 testing's accuracy??

Isn't 2000 years old too young for carbon dating to be accurate?

Philip wrote:What impact might the fires it has been exposed to, have, as to any C-14 testing's accuracy??

Radiocarbon samples are burnt to CO2 as part of the process of dating, so burning by itself does not have any effect. Pieces of charcoal from fires are routinely dated without any problem. An experiment to attempt to force carbon monoxide into the molecular structure of linen failed. In short, fires have minimal impact on C-14 testing's accuracy.

RickD wrote:Isn't 2000 years old too young for carbon dating to be accurate?

No. Medieval artefacts of all kinds are routinely dated with an accuracy of a few years. The bones of King Richard II, who died in 1485, were dated to an accuracy of plus or minus 18 years.

Hugh , Stephen jones has invited you over to his blog to discuss his c14 theory

This was said in 1998 by the expert archeologist Robert about c14

https://www.shroud.com/meacham.htm