Kepler Spacecraft Finds 2 Planets Sharing Same Orbit

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think I’ve seen that before and don’t really understand it.
It is showing the information flow. As you can see faith and reason intersect. In this areas both have to be true. Revelation we know not to be faulty, but we know that human reasoning can be.

Do you think God purposely excludes matters of science from His Revelation?
 
Operative word is NEED. We can know things outside of salvational matters, but we don’t have to.
If we wish to take the attitude that we don’t need anything outside of salvational matters then I would not be able to communicate with you here, may have never lived this long to type this because I would have died from a preventable disease…

I think you understand how we do need to care about the here and now.
 
Operative word is NEED. We can know things outside of salvational matters, but we don’t have to.
In a completely minimal sense, you are right. Likewise, all you NEED for physical life is food, drink, breath and shelter. No one would suggest, however, that a human life limited to the acquisition of these items was “ideal.”

Our very species name means “wise man.” You get to wisdom by acquiring knowledge. Not by shutting down your mind whenever something not soul-related was entering it.

Our God given bodies are designed around our mind. And we have such a short time to use it!

ICXC NIKA
 
In a completely minimal sense, you are right. Likewise, all you NEED for physical life is food, drink, breath and shelter. No one would suggest, however, that a human life limited to the acquisition of these items was “ideal.”

Our very species name means “wise man.” You get to wisdom by acquiring knowledge. Not by shutting down your mind whenever something not soul-related was entering it.

Our God given bodies are designed around our mind. And we have such a short time to use it!

ICXC NIKA
Yes - I meant the bare minimum, not something like we shouldn’t learn. 🙂
 
It is showing the information flow. As you can see faith and reason intersect. In this areas both have to be true. Revelation we know not to be faulty, but we know that human reasoning can be.

Do you think God purposely excludes matters of science from His Revelation?
All I want is a direct answer to my question, #12.
 
All I want is a direct answer to my question, #12.
you - So basically the answer to my question is that scientific discoveries, such as what is in the link I posted, doesn’t conflict with the Bible because the Bible isn’t meant to be read as how the earth and universe was formed but why, and that God did it all. Correct?

The direct answer is no.
 
Einstein when asked- “Is there a god?” He said there has to be!

Nitpicking over what is in the Bible is fruitless- The whole of the Bible can be condensed into Jesus’s words which are from the Old T - Love the Lord God with all your heart, mind, and soul and love your neighbor as yourself.

If it took Jesus to bring you to this realization or if you were taught it by being Jewish it doesn’t matter- I have studied what other “philosophies” say -Buddism ,Confuscis, Shinto… etc. The above statement is the only way the world will survive
The Great Commandment in some form eg, the Golden Rule, predates Christianity by millenia. The non dualist school, first exemplified by Shankara, though it is much older, explicates why the Great Commandment, the Golden Rule, the Law of Reciprocity, and the dictum to Know Thyself are fundamentally grounded in the same Truth.

Regarding Einstein:

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” (Albert Einstein, 1954) From Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

“The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.” (Albert Einstein)

“A man’s ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” (Albert Einstein, Religion and Science, New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930

“I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.” (Albert Einstein, The World as I See It)

“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own – a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbour such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.” (Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955)

“One strength of the Communist system … is that it has some of the characteristics of a religion and inspires the emotions of a religion.” (Albert Einstein, Out Of My Later Years, 1950)

“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.” (Albert Einstein) Following his wife’s advice in responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the International Synagogue in New York, who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding Do you believe in God? Quoted from and citation notes derived from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? (draft: 2001), chapter 3.
 
The Great Commandment in some form eg, the Golden Rule, predates Christianity by millenia. The non dualist school, first exemplified by Shankara, though it is much older, explicates why the Great Commandment, the Golden Rule, the Law of Reciprocity, and the dictum to Know Thyself are fundamentally grounded in the same Truth.
Yes, but do you have any reason to suppose that Christianity ripped off the Golden Rule or that it would have had the same influence without Jesus? And what “truth” has the Shankara found in these ideas?
Regarding Einstein:
Einstein **did **believe in a God; nothing you write there contradicts that. It was never argued on this thread that he believed in YHWH, just that he believed in God. He also made clear on multiple occasions that this was not an allegory for the laws of physics or quantum mechanics.
 
Consider this for a minute:
It took far less than that to perceive that the smallest segment is meant to explain the circles outside it, so it fails. But it goes to explaining why you are so relatively unimaginative and tiny in your misconceptualization of God.
 
It took far less than that to perceive that the smallest segment is meant to explain the circles outside it, so it fails. But it goes to explaining why you are so relatively unimaginative and tiny in your misconceptualization of God.
So, you make an ad homenim attack on his idea because he chose to use a particular model to try to demonstrate it. Congratulations.
 
Yes, but do you have any reason to suppose that Christianity ripped off the Golden Rule or that it would have had the same influence without Jesus? And what “truth” has the Shankara found in these ideas?
Hey! There’s an opportunity for you to learn something: go read his works and those of the proponents of that stream.
Einstein **did **believe in a God; nothing you write there contradicts that. It was never argued on this thread that he believed in YHWH, just that he believed in God. He also made clear on multiple occasions that this was not an allegory for the laws of physics or quantum mechanics.
So, you make an ad homenim attack on his idea because he chose to use a particular model to try to demonstrate it. Congratulations.

I’m sorry, but are you actually reading these posts???
 
I just read this article and wanted to know if this or the rest of the article in any way contradicts Genesis?I

[If this dual-orbiting planet hypothesis gets confirmed, researchers suggest it would lend credence to a theory that our moon was created when a planet-sized object, sharing a similar orbit to Earth’s eons ago, possibly crashed into our home world.]

aolnews.com/2011/03/01/kepler-spacecraft-finds-2-planets-sharing-same-orbit/?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main-n%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%7C204156
Hi, Faith1960,

Let not your faith be troubled, but remember the ‘fine print’ of that article. To wit, “If the two planets are confirmed…it will lend credence…to the theory…”

That means, it’s not been verified that those two planets of KOI-730 are in the same orbit. And, even if they are, it remains an unfounded speculation that a like planet hit our Earth to create the moon. Because, it remains an unfounded speculation that those two KOI-730 planets will collide.

It’s all smoke and mirrors.

Now, I’ll read the other posts in this thread.

God loves you,
Don
 
So basically the answer to my question is that scientific discoveries, such as what is in the link I posted, doesn’t conflict with the Bible because the Bible isn’t meant to be read as how the earth and universe was formed but why, and that God did it all. Correct?
Hi, again, Faith1960,

Now, I’ve read all the posts in this thread, including buffalo’s 1:03PM today’s answer.
Sorry to confuse you, but it looks to me like you have the general idea about reading the Holy Bible and not comparing it to scientific findings.
So, I contradict what buffalo told you.

I remember very few places in the Holy Bible where God specifies how something is done. The three Old Testaments places are when, first God told Noah how to build the Ark and second when He told Moses how to build the Tabernacle then three when He told Solomon how to build the Temple. Other than that, I don’t remember any “how to’s” in the Holy Bible.

God loves you,
Don
 
Hey! There’s an opportunity for you to learn something: go read his works and those of the proponents of that stream.
Sure, I’ll get around to it.
I’m sorry, but are you actually reading these posts???
For the former, I was attempting to clarify. He never denied the existence of a God - he was a deist, and a rather friendly one at that.

For the latter, that was what I said it was, or at least under my interpretation.
 
Sure, I’ll get around to it.
I wish Ihad a picture of a round tuit to post… :;-):
I never said he wasn’t; I was just trying to let him speak for himself.
For the latter, that was what I said it was, or at least under my interpretation
It might have bee ad hominem as far as my personal opinion of his premises and such, but the actual comment stemmed from the failure of his Venn diagram.

RF
[/QUOTE]
 
It took far less than that to perceive that the smallest segment is meant to explain the circles outside it, so it fails. But it goes to explaining why you are so relatively unimaginative and tiny in your misconceptualization of God.
How would you draw it?
 
Hi, again, Faith1960,

Now, I’ve read all the posts in this thread, including buffalo’s 1:03PM today’s answer.
Sorry to confuse you, but it looks to me like you have the general idea about reading the Holy Bible and not comparing it to scientific findings.
So, I contradict what buffalo told you.

I remember very few places in the Holy Bible where God specifies how something is done. The three Old Testaments places are when, first God told Noah how to build the Ark and second when He told Moses how to build the Tabernacle then three when He told Solomon how to build the Temple. Other than that, I don’t remember any “how to’s” in the Holy Bible.

God loves you,
Don
Scripture and tradition both speak truths. When they touch upon matters of science they must be respected. God’s word is solid and does not lose it truth because in 2011 we know more about the universe. There are multiple layers and meanings to Scripture.

Let us start right at the beginning.

In the beginning - time began
God created the heavens - space
and earth - matter.

The ancients knew this from the beginning. Science just confirmed it recently.

Here scripture and science. Suppose science (which is provisional) made a declaration that matter does not exist. How then would we wiggle out of the first verse?

One should tread very carefully here. Revelation should illuminate reasoning not scientism.
 
How would you draw it?
There are a number of ways that could be used as symbols pointing to an idea of how that works. Some rather good ones have been published, in fact, and others, more subtle, included in some brilliant lectures on cosmology and ontology. I’ve seen several that actually work, though they have some limitations, of course. the map is not the territory. I’ve did a few diagrams myself and later discovered they unexpectedly concurred with others who had made them on the some experiential basis I had.

However, I’ve observed the adamantine nature of your hypotheses on here. It would take a lot to get me to share them with you. I have no sense from you of even mild receptivity to anything other than what concurs with your world view. But thank you for your invitation.
 
There are a number of ways that could be used as symbols pointing to an idea of how that works. Some rather good ones have been published, in fact, and others, more subtle, included in some brilliant lectures on cosmology and ontology. I’ve seen several that actually work, though they have some limitations, of course. the map is not the territory. I’ve did a few diagrams myself and later discovered they unexpectedly concurred with others who had made them on the some experiential basis I had.

However, I’ve observed the adamantine nature of your hypotheses on here. It would take a lot to get me to share them with you. I have no sense from you of even mild receptivity to anything other than what concurs with your world view. But thank you for your invitation.
Why waste the time to criticize then? If what you have to offer is true then idea will yield to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top