Then how did the bible say the earth was circular?(Isaiah 40:22 NIV) or that the earth was orbiting?(Jer. 31:35,36) in 1500 bc?
i know who is the uncaused cause....
No, you do not know. You "believe" that you know based upon your faith and your reading of the Bible which is the claim, not the proof. The Bible is not proof of itself. I will try to explain the Hebrew wording later today.
when science, prophecy, history and morals all point to one thing, then yes, you KNOW.
Then please offer some proof.
do you mind if i send you a document? id like to give you the full extent, no need to counter it.
Ok, but first can you tell me how it feels to know that you are to become an immortal?
btw, I won't counter it. I will debunk it. Is it fair to assume you are a Jehovah Witness?
Sigh. The uncaused-cause problem is one I've had to deal with multiple times including being one of the few students in a seminar on Aquinas who called out all the fallacies in the argument and his Summa Theologica. The uncaused-cause is nowhere to be found in the bible (unambiguously and clearly pointing to this metaphysical concept). In fact, the bible has a surprisingly microscopic amount of philosophizing in most books, but is more often a chronicle of violent actions, lists of strange laws and praise praise praise.
No...Aristotle (well before Christianity) was the first philosopher to formally develop this theory and it was embedded in a metaphysical system that while to some extent is true (animals and plants do regularly develop into a more mature and complex form) other parts are nonsense (that there is a natural force encouraging plants to strive towards realising their ideal form). The unmoved-mover or the uncaused cause is a metaphysical theory and hardly an essential one. There need not be an uncaused cause and we have no reason to suspect that it's more likely there was an uncaused cause as opposed to many other speculative or unimaginable origins (or even no origin in time).
It was only later through a few Christian philosophers and ultimately with Thomas Aquinas that Aristotles metaphisics were merged with Aquinas.
Since the bible doesn't mention the uncaused-cause as a metaphysical concept (instead a few poetic lines that could be interpreted as an uncaused-cause if you were desperate), Aquinas had to take Aristotle's metaphysics, chop it up into pieces ripping apart the arguments and then open up the bible and hammer various square pieces in to circular holes and whip it all together with a narrative that sounds logical but a result which is terrible. It is painful to read Aristotle and then see it butchered by Aquinas with an agenda of mashing the bible into it.
Theologians are really hung up on the uncaused-cause because if there was an uncaused-cause then it could be a God like character. To reach that conclusion though, you have to take it for granted that there is an uncaused-cause (through a fallacious argument that equates a house built by a man is comparable to the universe created by a man mixed with the assumption there was a point-alpha (when it all began or never wasn't) which required someone to cause it. Then, after that broad assumption is made, you have to assume it is a God like character (why must it be a conscious being as opposed to a force or no being or consciousness at all?)...and after those two assumptions, you have to assume it's the God of the church these pseudo-philosophers just happen to have been born into (as oppsed to Allah or the Zoroastrian God). They are hung up on this concept because if all those assumptions were true, then you would have a very strong argument for the existence of their God. Problem is...these theologians don't recognise that the arguments are assumptions and not sound conclusions and they discuss it so as if it is a given.
The uncaused-cause is a wildly speculative concept and is but one theory and ultimately making these assumption you still have no grounds to prove the uncaused-cause was the God of the religion you were born into. That's pretty presumptuous and self-serving no? It's all a terribly unstable house of cards on a windy day.
Do you think Miller may have overlooked the significance of reagents, especially where cyanamide is concerned? It is thought that it would aid the polymerisation of amino acids into simple peptides which could further evolve (chemically, that is) into larger chains of polypeptides which are possible contenders for “first life” or is that a silly question given that you are sure your God did it? I suppose that answer depends on where you learn your Science?
just proof that im not a kid stuggling with my belief