|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
How Science Suggests God May Have Created the Universe II
« Back to club forum
| ||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 How Science Suggests God May Have Created the Universe IIBut first I am transferring it here for ease of access. Thumper wrote... "So if I proclaimed that you're lying, that's different than proclaiming that you're a liar? That it's semantically different? That's a cop-out unworthy of you. Should I then apply those terms to you, VF, DM, Vic or anyone else here that I may disagree with or believe to be in error? How would you like it if that standard was applied to you? Instead off saying you misunderstand I say, you're lying. Instead of saying you're wrong I say, you're lying. Instead of saying you're in error I say, you're lying. Instead of saying I disagree I say, you're lying. Instead of saying the facts don't support that I say, you're lying. Softie himself would council me against such a unfair statement. There's only one poster in this club who regularly and deliberately makes false statements and that's not Softie. Even so I've never called that individual a liar. To claim that someone is lying is in effect calling them a liar. Everyone here is above average IQ so it's not that difficult of a concept to grasp. The rule is to treat others as you would have them treat you." ~Thumper And he did so in direct response to me saying the following... " There is actually a big difference. The difference between saying "you're lying" and "you're a liar" mainly comes down to tone and how personal the accusation feels. When you say "you're lying," you're pointing out a specific action—you're accusing the person of being untruthful in that moment, about a particular thing. It's still confrontational, but it's focused on the behavior rather than the person themselves. On the other hand, saying "you're a liar" is much more personal and harsh. It labels the person as someone who habitually lies, implying that dishonesty is part of their character. So, while "you're lying" critiques what someone is doing right now, "you're a liar" attacks who they are as a person. That’s why the second one often feels more insulting or aggressive. Pointing out falshoods wether intentional or unintentional have different impact and verbiage when addressing it." ~ Apatzer I will reply in a little while. |
|||||||||
|
But this doesn't have anything to do with what is posted above. I still intend to reply to that on a respectful way. I just wanted to get that off my chest first. |
|||||||||
|
Correction |
|||||||||
|
Thumper After some some thought and intentional setting any emotions or suppositions of motives aside. I must say thanks for taking the time to respond so passionately to the distinction I shared. I can see that you're weighing this with seriousness and a deep sense of loyalty to Softaire, which I respect. That said, I feel it’s important to clarify that the distinction between saying “you’re lying” and “you’re a liar” isn’t about splitting hairs or avoiding accountability — it’s about understanding how language works in context, especially when discussions become emotionally charged. When we say “you’re lying,” we could be accusing someone of intentional deceit — sure. But it can also simply mean that we believe someone has said something untrue, whether or not it was done with a willful intention to deceive. There’s a world of difference between being mistaken, misinformed, or holding a contentious interpretation of a subject (like the Bible), and intentionally fabricating or distorting the truth, which is what “lying” implies. Now, calling someone “a liar” goes further — it's a direct indictment of their character. It doesn't just suggest they told a falsehood; it labels them as someone who can’t be trusted to be truthful. It’s personal, and it marks someone with a negative identity. Is it semantics? Partly — but semantics matter. Language isn’t just about what we say, it's about what we mean, how it's received, and the intention behind the words. To equate “you’re lying” with “you’re a liar” assumes that every false or mistaken claim comes from intent to deceive — and that’s rarely a fair or accurate assumption, especially in a community where interpretation and personal beliefs play such a central role in discussion. That brings me to your hypothetical — that instead of saying someone is misinformed, mistaken, or wrong, we just say they’re lying. That kind of rhetorical approach would erode not just civil dialogue, but the sense of community we value here. Most of us have strong opinions. We all get things wrong sometimes, and we all hold views that others might see as incorrect — but to jump straight to the accusation of dishonesty is to write off the possibility that someone is acting in good faith. That approach quickly turns disagreement into direct conflict. The heart of this conversation isn’t really about Softaire, you, or me personally — it’s about recognizing that our words reflect more than just ideas. They reflect how we see each other as people. The difference between saying someone has lied (in a moment) and branding them a liar (as a person) is akin to the difference between saying “what you said hurt me” and “you’re a cruel person.” One deals with an issue; the other applies a permanent label. And you're correct — the Golden Rule applies here. It’s not just about being “right”; it’s about treating people fairly, assuming good intentions until proven otherwise, and engaging with humility. As for your last assertion — I gently disagree. Saying someone is lying is not automatically the same as calling them a liar. We make distinctions like this all the time in communication, especially when we want to correct someone without attacking their character. The fact that everyone here is highly intelligent means we should be capable of making those distinctions, not dismissing them out of hand. This isn’t about avoiding accountability or defending anyone by dodging the truth. It’s about encouraging conversations that reveal truth rather than shutting them down with accusations. We all owe it to each other to keep our discourse honest and respectful. Even when we disagree — maybe especially when we disagree. |
|||||||||
|
Apatzer When was the last time you said to someone's face, 'you're lying'? If so how did that turn out? Did they reasonably conclude that you're calling them a liar? Did you then equivocate and qualify that assertion with, you don't think they're actually a liar per-say but just lied about that? The accusation and damage is done. We're not talking about, "Does this dress make me look fat?" kind of lie. Asserting that someone lied is attacking their character. |
|||||||||
|
Thumper However, I generally don't call people out on their lies. I let them think they fooled me and I just slowly cut ties. Over the Internet, via written words. Sometimes I say it. But then it's usually backed up with proof. Same if someone accuses me. I truly appreciate and get what you are saying. I also largely agree with you and I do appreciate the tone you’re taking here. You're raising an important point: that in real-life conversations, especially face-to-face, calling someone a liar or saying "you're lying" can be received as a serious personal affront. You're right — when emotions are high, the impact of saying “you’re lying” can feel indistinguishable from calling someone “a liar,” regardless of the speaker’s intention. It lands hard either way, and often the damage is already done by the time you try to clarify or soften it. Words matter, but so do timing, tone, context, and relationship dynamics. That said, I’d argue the distinction is still worth considering — not to excuse hurtful words, but to improve how we handle confrontation. While it’s true that accusing someone of lying can feel like an attack on their integrity, it doesn’t have to be, especially if approached carefully and respectfully. There are moments — rare, but real — when someone says something provably false and is then presented with contradictory evidence, yet persists. In such cases, people tend to move from “I think that’s incorrect” to “That feels dishonest.” How we express that perception can escalate or de-escalate the conflict. You're asking me to consider: when have I personally told someone to their face “you’re lying”? Honestly — almost never. Because it is harsh, and it does feel confrontational. Most of us instinctively avoid going that far unless it’s necessary — and when we do, we usually qualify it. “I don’t think that’s true,” “That doesn’t match the facts I’ve seen,” or “Are you sure that’s accurate?” These are all verbal ways we aim to challenge a claim without necessarily attacking the person. That’s part of being mindful: we're trying to disagree without contempt. But here’s the key point — the existence of that instinct proves that there’s a difference between calling out an untruth and labeling someone’s character. If the lines were truly the same, we wouldn’t shy away from saying either one. The fact that most of us try to avoid calling someone a liar until we've really lost patience shows we do recognize a meaningful threshold. Let me put it this way: Just because the effect of saying “you’re lying” can feel like a personal attack doesn’t mean the intent is always character assassination. It's completely fair to hold someone accountable when their words don't align with truth, just as it’s equally fair to expect others to call us out with grace, not judgment. That’s the kind of mutual respect that preserves dialogue, instead of poisoning it. Ultimately, I think we're agreeing on more than it seems. You're rightly pointing out the emotional impact our words can have. I’m simply saying we still need to be discerning about those words, because not every disagreement or misstatement is evidence of bad faith. The goal isn’t to dodge hard conversations — it’s to have them without tearing each other down in the process. However even though I believe context and semantics matter. I will concede your point and say . You're right. Because us humans hardly take it any other way. That's practically. Technically, it isn't always the case. |
|||||||||
|
Is it wrong to make derogatory statements about someone’s faith from a position of complete ignorance, ignore questions designed to create a discussion on that faith and then claim the other person is incapable of having a discussion? Because that’s what softaire’s been doing in this thread for weeks. He says the Bible and Christianity are false. He ignores questions (and doesn’t ask questions) about the Bible and Christianity. He repeats that the Bible and Christianity are false. He ignores questions (and doesn’t ask questions) about the Bible and Christianity. He repeats that the Bible and Christianity are false. He then claims he’s objective, fair, respectful and willing to consider all evidence and that the other party – whose questions he ignored – is incapable of having a discussion. So yeah, argue about lying vs. liar all you want. I think the dishonest way softaire has approached this thread, while claiming to be open minded and on a search for the truth, is a much bigger issue. |
|||||||||
|
Apatzer |
|||||||||
|
Vic |
|||||||||
|
@Thumper |
|||||||||
|
Thumper |
|||||||||
|
dmaestro 07-Aug-25, 00:22 |
|
|||||||||
|
While you and I and some Christians may be committed to living/ abiding by the truth as we understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ to be the available truth about God, I'm sure you understand that this is only possible for those who have asked Christ 🙏 into our hearts. W/O that as our "starting point" discussions about any subject (especially like the one in this tread) will find it impossible to accept POVs which are not 'governed' by Holy Spirit. As a question I had a while back I asked AI if the Bible made mention of people who have been decieved concerning the revelation of God, it gave a very interesting response! |
|||||||||
|
How Science Suggests God May Have Created the Universe. Science suggests God may have created the universe primarily through evidence that the universe had a definite beginning, rather than existing eternally, and that it is finely tuned for life. The Big Bang theory, supported by extensive cosmological data, shows the universe emerged about 13.8 to 14 billion years ago from a singularity—an event where time, space, matter, and energy all began. This indicates the universe is not eternal and must have had a cause outside of itself, beyond space and time, which is consistent with the idea of a supernatural creator. Additionally, the universe's fundamental physical constants and forces (gravity, electromagnetic, and nuclear forces) are finely balanced in a way that allows stars, planets, and life to form. This "fine-tuning" strongly suggests intentional design by an intelligent agent. Examples include the precise strength of gravity and Earth's perfect position in the "Goldilocks zone," ideal for sustaining life. Philosophically, since everything that begins to exist has a cause, and the universe began to exist, it follows logically that the universe must have a transcendent cause, often identified as God. Scientific observations, like the universe's beginning confirmed by cosmic background radiation measurements, align with this perspective. While science cannot directly prove God, these cosmological and fine-tuning findings are interpreted by many as powerful evidence suggesting an intelligent creator behind the universe. In summary, science points to the universe having a singular beginning and being exquisitely tuned for life, suggesting the involvement of a creator consistent with the concept of God. |
|||||||||
|
Science Is Like Hop-A-Long Cassidy Observations such as the expansion of galaxies, first noted by Edwin Hubble, and the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation by Penzias and Wilson provide robust evidence for this singular beginning. The initial state of the universe, described as a point of infinite density and extreme heat, predates the existence of the physical laws we observe today, meaning these laws could not have caused the universe's emergence. "Did God Create the Universe?" www.everystudent.com |
|||||||||
|
@valley_forge 07:54 I remember decades ago when I was singing in a church choir, a man approached me after the service and asked if I liked the Old Testament or New Testament better. Why he wanted my opinion was beyond me (I was like 8 years old,) but I answered and said the Old Testament. He asked me why and I just shrugged my shoulders. He asked, “Because it’s old?” and I said, “Yeah.” I could tell he was disappointed by my answer, but what did he expect? I was 8 and had no idea what was in the Bible lol |
|||||||||
|
A craftsman recognizes and respects the work of a superior craftsman. |
|||||||||
|
@Thumper |
|||||||||
|
This humanistic world view was all that was allowed in the public schools all of the time I attended from my earliest memories. How can this brainwashing be reversed when later we come to faith in Christ? As we can see from these forum discussions - not very easily at all! The Western Civilization made a bad turn somewhere in the past IMO when they thought it expedient to dismiss the Christian faith from the classroom and the public square. Getting back a consensus on this I believe would be impossible. |
|||||||||
|
Thumper 15:01 |
|||||||||
|
Thumper @ 15:01 Many most, if not all arguments & disagreements could/ would be avoided were this POV not the goal of atheists and rebels of God given free reign to disseminate criticism as freely as they are. |
|||||||||
|
I'll post the short version. A scientist approaches God on a beach and says, "We don't need you, God. Science can do anything you can do. We can even create life!" God replies, "Show me." The scientist bends down to gather sand to begin his experiment. God interrupts, "No, get your own sand." |
|||||||||
|
Alien life signal detected 120 light-years from us We "may" have detected a signal that implies intelligent life "may" exist only about 120 light years away. The article discusses what they found and the possible implications for science and society. Pretty interesting. Alien life signal detected 120 light-years from us www.msn.com |
|||||||||
|
When an advanced civilisation encounters a comparatively 'primitive' one things don't usually turn out well for the more primitive one. |
|||||||||
|
dmaestro 12-Aug-25, 14:47 |
|
|||||||||
|
DM I have said several times now that the existence of God or gods could go either way... yes, it is true and He (They) are responsible for the universe and all that is in it; OR NO, it is all a Natural (and probably never ending) cycle of birth, death, and universe rebirth after death. Does the natural, never-ending cycle of the universe, sound a little like the Christianity view of things? Maybe they are not so far apart? |
|||||||||
|
Life on Titan? Who or what created the universe doesn't matter for this idea... or does it? What do you think of that idea? NASA researchers realized there is a potential path for life on Saturn’s moon Titan www.msn.com |
|||||||||
|
A tale of two potter's The first one makes a beautiful vessel but noticed a tiny flaw. So they scrapped it entirely. The second one also made a beautiful vessel, and also noticed flaws. This potter decide to take the time and energy to repair the flaws so that this beautiful pot could still be used. Which is the better potter? |
|||||||||
|
Life on Titan I have a radical hypothesis based on the Biblical verse in Matthew 13:31-32. The parable describes the kingdom of heaven as being like a mustard seed, which is the smallest of all seeds. However, when the mustard seed grows, it becomes the largest of garden plants and grows into a tree large enough for birds to come and make nests in its branches. We started from a singularity (allegedly) and there is mounting evidence that our universe exists inside of a black hole. Which goes with the saying "in my father's house are many mansions" which is bigger? A house or a mansion? This is a lot of speculation ony part and I don't put much weight on it because it really doesn't matter. However. I take it that the mustard seed could also mean our universes singularity state, and when it grows it becomes the largest. And Galaxies are birds perched in it's branches (cosmic web) This would mean that the Universe is also alive in some ways, Are we the sum total of our atom's? Or are we more. |
|||||||||
|
Does the natural, never-ending cycle of the universe, sound a little like the Christianity view of things? Maybe they are not so far apart? >> If it is accurate that there’s a “never ending cycle of birth, death, and the universe rebirth after death” this to me sounds more like the premise of religious faiths which believe in reincarnation such as what the oriental religions believe, isn’t it? en.wikipedia.org Also, some Gnostic religious beliefs hold to the idea of reincarnation. www.wendag.com The reason these ideas can not or should not be considered valid or worthy of study is because outside of “channelers” and mystics who adhere to eastern religions and Gnosticism their religious beliefs are not verifiable like the Biblical narrative is verifiable. So, for that reason, should not be considered valid. IMO, reincarnation and the idea of individual souls transmuting across time does not take into account the uniqueness of individual God (of the Bible) created souls which mirror or coincide with God’s (of the Bible) own Uniqueness and Supremacy as the One and Only true God or Creator. Reincarnation is a deception meant to deceive people of the truth of God’s Uniqueness and the uniqueness for the truth of the Bible. The similarity of physical/ chemical processes to those processes found in the life (created by God - of the Bible) here on the earth are only evidences for the Artistic creation methods of the One true God of the Bible. While interesting to study from an academic perspective, they should not be considered to have been created or originated outside of God’s creative power as described in the Bible. Especially as no outside evidence of an alien life form has ever been discovered, IMO. Nor have scientists ever corroborated the “creative” processes or “powers” of eastern and Gnostic religions, have they? |
|||||||||
| ||||||||||
