Guest josh Posted December 11, 2006 Posted December 11, 2006 Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design are quick to credit God with the creation and the ongoing supervision of the world, but are not so hasty to explain the origin of God and the source of the abilities attributed to him. I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which he could exist, and that was the universe. If God has amazing powers of thought and action, what was he doing with those powers before he used them? Just daydreaming? It seems impossible to account for God's endless power. For example, did he sit working out the complexity of the human body in some sort of vacuum somewhere? He could not do that without some sort of thinking mechanism and memory, which suggests a previous round of creation. Short thinkers might just say he was in heaven, but what does that mean? If it is a place, then it must have been created. And therefore there was a time when it had not been created, so God could not then have lived there. So maybe God and heaven had to happen at the same time - but there can be no word 'happen' in a place outside time! This takes us back to my first suggestion that God could not exist before there was a universe for him to exist in. And still the same problem arises: the universe exists in time, so God and the universe must have come into being at the same moment, so God could not have created the universe. Please argue. Quote
Guest farentilmaren@gmail.com Posted December 11, 2006 Posted December 11, 2006 josh skrev: > Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design are quick to credit God > with the creation and the ongoing supervision of the world, but are not so > hasty to explain the origin of God and the source of the abilities > attributed to him. > > I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which he > could exist, and that was the universe. If God has amazing powers of > thought and action, what was he doing with those powers before he used them? > Just daydreaming? > > It seems impossible to account for God's endless power. For example, did he > sit working out the complexity of the human body in some sort of vacuum > somewhere? He could not do that without some sort of thinking mechanism and > memory, which suggests a previous round of creation. > > Short thinkers might just say he was in heaven, but what does that mean? If > it is a place, then it must have been created. And therefore there was a > time when it had not been created, so God could not then have lived there. > So maybe God and heaven had to happen at the same time - but there can be no > word 'happen' in a place outside time! > > This takes us back to my first suggestion that God could not exist before > there was a universe for him to exist in. And still the same problem > arises: the universe exists in time, so God and the universe must have come > into being at the same moment, so God could not have created the universe. > > Please argue. And God said: I am bored, therefore I create. Quote
Guest duke Posted December 11, 2006 Posted December 11, 2006 On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, "josh" <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: >I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which he >could exist, and that was the universe. Then what created the universe? duke, American-American "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI Quote
Guest Enkidu Posted December 11, 2006 Posted December 11, 2006 "josh" <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote in news:k_mdnUJkoIF4fODYnZ2dnUVZ8qm3nZ2d@eclipse.net.uk: > Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design are quick to credit > God with the creation and the ongoing supervision of the world, but > are not so hasty to explain the origin of God and the source of the > abilities attributed to him. > > I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which > he could exist, and that was the universe. If God has amazing powers > of thought and action, what was he doing with those powers before he > used them? Just daydreaming? Perhaps He contemplated His navel a lot. Oh wait . . . that doesn't work, does it? -- Enkidu AA#2165 http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/ EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "To illustrate the vain conceit that the universe must be somehow pre- ordained for us, because we are so well-suited to live in it, he [Adams] mimed a wonderfully funny imitation of a puddle of water, fitting itself snugly into a depression in the ground, the depression uncannily being exactly the same shape as the puddle." -Richard Dawkins, in "Lament for Douglas" (14 May 2001) Quote
Guest Jim07D6 Posted December 11, 2006 Posted December 11, 2006 "josh" <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> said: >Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design are quick to credit God >with the creation and the ongoing supervision of the world, but are not so >hasty to explain the origin of God and the source of the abilities >attributed to him. > >I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which he >could exist, and that was the universe. If God has amazing powers of >thought and action, what was he doing with those powers before he used them? >Just daydreaming? > >It seems impossible to account for God's endless power. For example, did he >sit working out the complexity of the human body in some sort of vacuum >somewhere? He could not do that without some sort of thinking mechanism and >memory, which suggests a previous round of creation. > >Short thinkers might just say he was in heaven, but what does that mean? If >it is a place, then it must have been created. And therefore there was a >time when it had not been created, so God could not then have lived there. >So maybe God and heaven had to happen at the same time - but there can be no >word 'happen' in a place outside time! > >This takes us back to my first suggestion that God could not exist before >there was a universe for him to exist in. And still the same problem >arises: the universe exists in time, so God and the universe must have come >into being at the same moment, so God could not have created the universe. > >Please argue. Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor. http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm -- Jim07D6 Quote
Guest Tough Tonto Posted December 11, 2006 Posted December 11, 2006 "duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:i2prn2h2n8d8rik4q54upsooscpj5vc9hm@4ax.com... > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, "josh" > <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which he >>could exist, and that was the universe. > > Then what created the universe? Exactly! End of story - nothing created it. There aren't any gods. Quote
Guest Azaliah Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, while bungee jumping, "josh" <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> shouted thusly: >Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design are quick to credit God >with the creation and the ongoing supervision of the world, but are not so >hasty to explain the origin of God and the source of the abilities >attributed to him. Evolutionists are quick to credit nothingness with the creation of everything. Before it all, there was nothingness. Then this nothingness expanded and here we are. And you call us religious? <chuckle> -- Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved" <((>< <((>< <((>< "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." - John 17:17 .. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, "josh" <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: - Refer: <k_mdnUJkoIF4fODYnZ2dnUVZ8qm3nZ2d@eclipse.net.uk> >Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design are quick to credit God : Define "God", as you implicitly assume that such a thing exists. -- Quote
Guest Rich Corinthian Leather Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 josh wrote: > Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design are quick to credit God > with the creation and the ongoing supervision of the world, but are not so > hasty to explain the origin of God and the source of the abilities > attributed to him. > > I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which he > could exist, and that was the universe. If God has amazing powers of > thought and action, what was he doing with those powers before he used them? > Just daydreaming? > > It seems impossible to account for God's endless power. For example, did he > sit working out the complexity of the human body in some sort of vacuum > somewhere? He could not do that without some sort of thinking mechanism and > memory, which suggests a previous round of creation. > > Short thinkers might just say he was in heaven, but what does that mean? If > it is a place, then it must have been created. And therefore there was a > time when it had not been created, so God could not then have lived there. > So maybe God and heaven had to happen at the same time - but there can be no > word 'happen' in a place outside time! > > This takes us back to my first suggestion that God could not exist before > there was a universe for him to exist in. And still the same problem > arises: the universe exists in time, so God and the universe must have come > into being at the same moment, so God could not have created the universe. > > Please argue. During a particularly bad case of PMS, God created the universe from her frustration of not having anyone or thing to bully! RCL Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Azaliah wrote: > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, while bungee jumping, > "josh" <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> shouted thusly: > > > >Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design are quick to credit God > >with the creation and the ongoing supervision of the world, but are not so > >hasty to explain the origin of God and the source of the abilities > >attributed to him. > > Evolutionists are quick to credit nothingness with > the creation of everything. Before it all, there was > nothingness. Then this nothingness expanded > and here we are. > > And you call us religious? <chuckle> Yes. You are religious. That explains why you just presented your uneducated abortion of scientific theory and laughed at it as if it were something atheists believed. If you think you are being clever, think again. Quote
Guest Rich Corinthian Leather Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Azaliah wrote: > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, while bungee jumping, > "josh" <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> shouted thusly: > > >> Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design are quick to credit God >> with the creation and the ongoing supervision of the world, but are not so >> hasty to explain the origin of God and the source of the abilities >> attributed to him. > > Evolutionists are quick to credit nothingness with > the creation of everything. Before it all, there was > nothingness. Then this nothingness expanded > and here we are. > > And you call us religious? <chuckle> > Not exactly "nothingness," just not matter or energy in the forms we see today. Perhaps you should google "Quantum Physics", or "String Theory" to see what current cosmology says about how the Universe came about. RCL Quote
Guest Azaliah Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 00:49:47 GMT, while bungee jumping, Rich Corinthian Leather <inexplicable@mysterious.net> shouted thusly: >Azaliah wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, while bungee jumping, >> "josh" <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> shouted thusly: >> >> >>> Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design are quick to credit God >>> with the creation and the ongoing supervision of the world, but are not so >>> hasty to explain the origin of God and the source of the abilities >>> attributed to him. >> >> Evolutionists are quick to credit nothingness with >> the creation of everything. Before it all, there was >> nothingness. Then this nothingness expanded >> and here we are. >> >> And you call us religious? <chuckle> > >Not exactly "nothingness," just not matter or energy in the forms we see >today. Perhaps you should google "Quantum Physics", or "String Theory" >to see what current cosmology says about how the Universe came about. First of all, stop lying. 1) Yes, it was, according to evolutionists, "a state of nothingness". 2) I am well familiar with the various sciences. 3) Quantum Physics says nothing to disprove my statement. 4) String Theory isn't even a theory, just as macroevolution isn't, but those who like to make it all happen by itself, slap that word onto anything they think says it happened all on its own. I am very familiar with String Theory, as well as the fact that right now, it is imagination and has some unsolved equations. It may in fact be valid, which would not prove that the universe created itself, even though idiots will claim it did, but it may be valid and I do find it fascinating and if true, it would explain a few things. 5) The fact is, the universe did not exist. Then it did. You think a valid premise is that it created itself, no matter how much you try to deny that. And frankly son, the fact that you're trying to deny that it created itself, shows that you know what an assinine idea it is! And why would anyone deny that it created itself, while trying to deny that God created it? <chuckle> And don't bother trying to demand that I prove anything to you, while all you have offered is "Google it" and then, when cornered, you will whine that "science isn't in the business of proof", which is true, but which you should have also remembered, before claiming that what you present is a fact. Science is a method, not a conclusion and science is not forced into "Godless research". If the research leads one to believe that creation was necessary, then it is entirely scientific to say that, just as it would be for an arrowhead, which you did not see the creator of and cannot "prove" that an Indian did it, yet exclaim with glee, how you proved that they lived in that land. <smirk> Sir Isaac Newton was declared, in a recent poll among scientists, to be the greatest scientist that ever lived! Sir Isaac Newton had a friend who, like himself, was a great scientist, but he was an infidel, while Newton was a devout believer, and they often locked horns over this question, though their mutual interest in science drew them much together. Newton had a skillful mechanic make him a replica of our solar system in miniature. In the center was a large gilded ball representing the sun, and revolving around this were smaller balls fixed on the ends of arms of varying lengths, representing Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, in their proper order. These balls were so geared together by cogs and belts as to move in perfect harmony by turning the crank. One day, as Newton sat reading in his study with his mechanism on a large table near him, his friend stepped in. He was scientist enough to recognize at a glance what was before him. Stepping up to it he slowly turned the crank, and with undisguised admiration watched the heavenly bodies all move in their relative speed in their orbits. Standing off a few feet, he exclaimed, "My! What an exquisite thing this is! Who made it?". Without looking up from his book, Newton answered, "Nobody!". Quickly turning to Newton the infidel said: "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this thing?". Looking up, Newton solemnly assured him that nobody had made it but that the aggregation of matter so much admired had just happened to assume the form it was in. But the astonished infidel replied with some heat, "You must think I'm a fool! Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I'd like to know who he is.". Laying his book aside, Newton arose and laid a hand on his friend's shoulder and said: "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such incongruous conclusion?". The infidel was at once convinced and became a firm believer that "Jehovah, He is the God.". I Kings 18:39 -- Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved" <((>< <((>< <((>< "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." - John 17:17 .. Quote
Guest Bill M Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 "duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:i2prn2h2n8d8rik4q54upsooscpj5vc9hm@4ax.com... > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, "josh" > <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which he >>could exist, and that was the universe. > > Then what created the universe? > Just maybe it always was and always will be! Quote
Guest Bill M Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Your uneducated logic is appalling. Science, whether String or Quantum Physics is of the opinion that the Universe expanded from a very tight compact ball of energy into the Universe. There is NO data that supports the creation by your god. > 5) The fact is, the universe did not exist. Then it did. > You think a valid premise is that it created itself, > no matter how much you try to deny that. And > frankly son, the fact that you're trying to deny that > it created itself, shows that you know what an asinine > idea it is! And why would anyone deny that it created > itself, while trying to deny that God created it? You insist that the Universe had to have a creator, your god. Why does your god not need a creator? Oh! He always was and always will be. Well so could the Universe! "Azaliah" <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4rasn25l4aitbosocmgki780857hrqlamd@4ax.com... > On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 00:49:47 GMT, while bungee jumping, Rich > Corinthian Leather <inexplicable@mysterious.net> shouted > thusly: > > >>Azaliah wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, while bungee jumping, >>> "josh" <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> shouted thusly: >>> >>> >>>> Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design are quick to credit >>>> God >>>> with the creation and the ongoing supervision of the world, but are not >>>> so >>>> hasty to explain the origin of God and the source of the abilities >>>> attributed to him. >>> >>> Evolutionists are quick to credit nothingness with >>> the creation of everything. Before it all, there was >>> nothingness. Then this nothingness expanded >>> and here we are. >>> >>> And you call us religious? <chuckle> >> >>Not exactly "nothingness," just not matter or energy in the forms we see >>today. Perhaps you should google "Quantum Physics", or "String Theory" >>to see what current cosmology says about how the Universe came about. > > First of all, stop lying. > > 1) Yes, it was, according to evolutionists, > "a state of nothingness". > > 2) I am well familiar with the various sciences. > > 3) Quantum Physics says nothing to disprove my statement. > > 4) String Theory isn't even a theory, just as macroevolution > isn't, but those who like to make it all happen by itself, > slap that word onto anything they think says it happened > all on its own. I am very familiar with String Theory, > as well as the fact that right now, it is imagination and > has some unsolved equations. It may in fact be valid, > which would not prove that the universe created itself, > even though idiots will claim it did, but it may be valid > and I do find it fascinating and if true, it would explain > a few things. > > 5) The fact is, the universe did not exist. Then it did. > You think a valid premise is that it created itself, > no matter how much you try to deny that. And > frankly son, the fact that you're trying to deny that > it created itself, shows that you know what an assinine > idea it is! And why would anyone deny that it created > itself, while trying to deny that God created it? > > <chuckle> > > And don't bother trying to demand that I prove anything > to you, while all you have offered is "Google it" and then, > when cornered, you will whine that "science isn't in the > business of proof", which is true, but which you should > have also remembered, before claiming that what you > present is a fact. > > Science is a method, not a conclusion and science > is not forced into "Godless research". If the research > leads one to believe that creation was necessary, > then it is entirely scientific to say that, just as it would > be for an arrowhead, which you did not see the creator > of and cannot "prove" that an Indian did it, yet exclaim > with glee, how you proved that they lived in that land. > > <smirk> > > Sir Isaac Newton was declared, in a recent poll among > scientists, to be the greatest scientist that ever lived! > > Sir Isaac Newton had a friend who, like himself, was a great > scientist, but he was an infidel, while Newton was a devout > believer, and they often locked horns over this question, > though their mutual interest in science drew them much > together. Newton had a skillful mechanic make him a replica > of our solar system in miniature. In the center was a large > gilded ball representing the sun, and revolving around this > were smaller balls fixed on the ends of arms of varying > lengths, representing Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, > Saturn, in their proper order. These balls were so geared > together by cogs and belts as to move in perfect harmony > by turning the crank. One day, as Newton sat reading in > his study with his mechanism on a large table near him, > his friend stepped in. He was scientist enough to recognize > at a glance what was before him. Stepping up to it he slowly > turned the crank, and with undisguised admiration watched > the heavenly bodies all move in their relative speed in their > orbits. Standing off a few feet, he exclaimed, "My! What an > exquisite thing this is! Who made it?". > > Without looking up from his book, Newton answered, > "Nobody!". Quickly turning to Newton the infidel said: > "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked > who made this thing?". Looking up, Newton solemnly > assured him that nobody had made it but that the aggregation > of matter so much admired had just happened to assume > the form it was in. But the astonished infidel replied with > some heat, "You must think I'm a fool! Of course somebody > made it, and he is a genius, and I'd like to know who he is.". > > Laying his book aside, Newton arose and laid a hand on > his friend's shoulder and said: "This thing is but a puny > imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, > and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is > without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe > that the great original from which the design is taken has > come into being without either designer or maker! Now > tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such > incongruous conclusion?". The infidel was at once convinced > and became a firm believer that "Jehovah, He is the God.". > I Kings 18:39 > > -- > > Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved" > > <((>< <((>< <((>< > > "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." > - John 17:17 > . Quote
Guest Padraic Brown Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, "josh" <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: >Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design are quick to credit God >with the creation and the ongoing supervision of the world, but are not so >hasty to explain the origin of God and the source of the abilities >attributed to him. For the most part, that is simply because it is outside the scope of their focus. It's like when a Creationist says to an Evolutionist "but your so-called theory doesn't take into account the origin of life!" Well, of course not! His theory is designed to describe how life got into the state and condition it's in, not how it all got started. Likewise with Creationists and IDers: their aim to describe how this world and this universe got started -- not where God came from or what he was doing the morning before creation. >I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which he >could exist, and that was the universe. An interesting conundrum you've got yourself into. God can't exist apart from the universe he created -- how then does this universe (and therefore God) exist if God couldn't even exist until the universe was created? Or, your supposition is that God is not equivalent to the Creator. >If God has amazing powers of >thought and action, what was he doing with those powers before he used them? >Just daydreaming? Who knows? Feel free to speculate! He could have been a janitor in some amazingly super-scientific lab where highly evolved beings were modelling small-scale universal laws. The janitor accidently trips a switch with his mop and hey-presto, the whole scenario generator is set into action. Our recollection of "the Creation" (you know, all that "let there be light" stuff) was simply reverberations of the janitor's voice as he called for the lab's auto-systems to turn on the lights so he could pick up his mop; these reverberations have been echoing around our little universe for all the time it's been in existence, and naturally, have helped to shape and form the very fundamentals of existence here . As for there ... >It seems impossible to account for God's endless power. For example, did he >sit working out the complexity of the human body in some sort of vacuum >somewhere? He could not do that without some sort of thinking mechanism and >memory, which suggests a previous round of creation. Why do you assume there is a "vacuum", just because we and our little universe don't exist? >Short thinkers might just say he was in heaven, but what does that mean? "Heaven" is a conceptualisation of a place not of this world -- a state or "place" that outside our normal experience and imagination. In short, "heaven" could be nothing more mundane than a humble janitor's flat in some city of highly advanced beings... >If >it is a place, then it must have been created. Sure. But we'd have to go there and ask its inhabitants what _they_ believe and speculate! We'd have to go all the way back the moment of creation there and see if there was something before our before. It could be that there are ever greater or more advanced civilisations outside our own little universe, some citizen of which accidentally or purposefully creates a universe of his own and is therefore part of a chain or web of Creative Responsiblity. >And therefore there was a >time when it had not been created, so God could not then have lived there. Perhaps. I'm sure we could ask his Mum and Dad about that... >So maybe God and heaven had to happen at the same time - but there can be no >word 'happen' in a place outside time! > >This takes us back to my first suggestion that God could not exist before >there was a universe for him to exist in. And you'll be right back to your same initial problem: if God made the universe, and also can't exist apart from it, then how can the universe have come to be? >And still the same problem >arises: the universe exists in time, so God and the universe must have come >into being at the same moment, so God could not have created the universe. > >Please argue. Why? Speculation is much more fun! Padraic. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest ernobe Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 josh wrote: > So maybe God and heaven had to happen at the same time - but there can be no > word 'happen' in a place outside time! > > This takes us back to my first suggestion that God could not exist before > there was a universe for him to exist in. And still the same problem > arises: the universe exists in time, so God and the universe must have come > into being at the same moment, so God could not have created the universe. > Believers say that He was in heaven, not so as to indicate a place, but so as attribute to Him the absence of all imperfections that characterizes heaven, as opposed to hell. This heaven is according to their own understanding, not the reality of it, because that would imply that they, who are the attribute, can comprehend the Essence. They who are comprehended cannot be the Comprehender, and are dependent on symbolic expressions in order to understand Him. There is no place outside of time. Quote
Guest ernobe Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 josh wrote: > So maybe God and heaven had to happen at the same time - but there can be no > word 'happen' in a place outside time! > > This takes us back to my first suggestion that God could not exist before > there was a universe for him to exist in. And still the same problem > arises: the universe exists in time, so God and the universe must have come > into being at the same moment, so God could not have created the universe. > Believers say that He was in heaven, not so as to indicate a place, but so as attribute to Him the absence of all imperfections that characterizes heaven, as opposed to hell. This heaven is according to their own understanding, not the reality of it, because that would imply that they, who are the attribute, can comprehend the Essence. They who are comprehended cannot be the Comprehender, and are dependent on symbolic expressions in order to understand Him. The universe exists in time, but its Creator is not subject to the passage of time. He exists in HIs own inaccessible realm, outside the reach of the comprehension of men. Quote
Guest Greywolf Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 "josh" <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:k_mdnUJkoIF4fODYnZ2dnUVZ8qm3nZ2d@eclipse.net.uk... > Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design are quick to credit God > with the creation and the ongoing supervision of the world, but are not so > hasty to explain the origin of God and the source of the abilities > attributed to him. > That's because they can't. > I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which he > could exist, and that was the universe. Ho hum. Where'd he come from? Momma and Poppa 'God'? Did he 'create' himself? When, and how did he do it? Where did he get the 'material' with which to 'create' the universe from? Where did he get his 'supernatural intellect, his imagination, his 'personality', his 'consciousness' from? I could go on. If God has amazing powers of > thought and action, what was he doing with those powers before he used > them? You use the word 'if' as if Mr. 'I Am Sooo Imaginary That It Makes 'Make-Believe' Pale In Comparison' were a 'real' entity. You're embracing nothing but thin-air here. > Just daydreaming? Just as much as he was before his imaginary self was imagined, I'd guess. > > It seems impossible to account for God's endless power. No it isn't. Just envision a 'God' with 'endless power' in your mind, and 'voila', there he is. Now wasn't that easy? For example, did he > sit working out the complexity of the human body in some sort of vacuum > somewhere? Well he never actually sat and worked out anything at any time . He was too busy being non-existent. He could not do that without some sort of thinking mechanism and > memory, which suggests a previous round of creation. > A 'thinking' mechanism? Now where do you suppose a 'God' who purportedly created himself would have gotten that from? > Short thinkers might just say he was in heaven, Or well entrenched in the land of imagination. Wouldn't you agree? but what does that mean? That he is about as 'real' as 'God' the 'Mother'. That is to say that entity which Christians do not realize was the 'Holy Spirit' before she was 'vaporized' by some sort of anti-female clergymen (of some sort or another) and transformed into some sort of 'God-Gas' that believers inhale in order to speak fluent gibberish and act stupid. If > it is a place, then it must have been created. There you go with that word 'if' again. And you say it as though it were a given 'fact'. Your 'God' would need to have been 'created', then. And who did the 'creatin' of the creator? Momma and Poppa 'God'? And therefore there was a > time when it had not been created, so God could not then have lived there. I'm not going to quibble about that! > So maybe God and heaven had to happen at the same time - And then again, 'maybe' both 'things' are just the product of man's fertile imagination. Did you ever consider that ? but there can be no > word 'happen' in a place outside time! > > This takes us back to my first suggestion that God could not exist before > there was a universe for him to exist in. Are you trying to imply that the 'time' before the existence of the universe didn't exist? That 'time' is a by-product of the universe? That a 'God' couldn't possible have the 'time' to create a universe? If so, when did he 'create' himself so that he could one day pretend to have a part of him crucified so that you could spend eternity bowing, scraping, and groveling before him in eternal bliss? And still the same problem > arises: the universe exists in time, so God and the universe must have > come into being at the same moment, Weeelllllll ... 'No'. so God could not have created the universe. > I couldn't have said it better myself. Greywolf Quote
Guest Scott Richter Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote: > >I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which he > >could exist, and that was the universe. > > Then what created the universe? Presuming the answer you're hoping for is "God", then what created God? Aren't these Sunday school games fun? > duke, American-American Idiot-Idiot > > "The Ass is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul LXIX > Quote
Guest Uncle Vic Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Azaliah (_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this: > 5) The fact is, the universe did not exist. Then it did. Where is your evidence to back this "fact"? Do you presume to know more than science? -- Uncle Vic aa Atheist #2011 Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department. Proud member of Earthquack's "Ghost fulla holes" convict page Quote
Guest Ron Baker, Pluralitas! Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 "josh" <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:k_mdnUJkoIF4fODYnZ2dnUVZ8qm3nZ2d@eclipse.net.uk... <snip> He was just hanging out in his room playing video games with Superman. Quote
Guest Chris Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Bill M wrote: > Your uneducated logic is appalling. Science, whether String or Quantum > Physics is of the opinion that the Universe expanded from a very tight > compact ball of energy into the Universe. There is NO data that supports the > creation by your god. > > > 5) The fact is, the universe did not exist. Then it did. > > You think a valid premise is that it created itself, > > no matter how much you try to deny that. And > > frankly son, the fact that you're trying to deny that > > it created itself, shows that you know what an asinine > > idea it is! And why would anyone deny that it created > > itself, while trying to deny that God created it? > You insist that the Universe had to have a creator, your god. Why does your > god not need a creator? Oh! He always was and always will be. > Well so could the Universe! > I just answered this question in another thread, but for the sake or argument, since he repeated his answer, I'll repeat mine. You contend that everything follows certains laws of physics and can be observed, documented, and learned from these laws to determine truths that explain your existence. These laws of physics only go so far in their explanation. You still have to explain where everything came from... Your laws of physics don't work! They can't explain where everything came from! You've come up with a bag of axioms that don't solve the most important equations of all -- where did we come from and why are we here? Don't give me google this or that, can you explain a theory here (don't give me a link) that doesn't take someone through a labyrinth of theories and require a reasonable person to jump through hoops to believe? I've yet to see one. Now consider a God who _created_ a closed system which has time, space, and all the laws of physics that accompany what we observe. Think about it. If you have a eternal, infinite God, why couldn't he created a closed system that contains time and space and operates according to certain laws.. Since God is outside this closed this, He doesn't have to operate under these same laws; after all, he created the laws... Thus he doesn't really need a beginning... After all, he created the law as part of this closed system that requires that everything has a beginning (cause/effect), but only in this closed system that we live. Chris > "Azaliah" <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:4rasn25l4aitbosocmgki780857hrqlamd@4ax.com... > > On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 00:49:47 GMT, while bungee jumping, Rich > > Corinthian Leather <inexplicable@mysterious.net> shouted > > thusly: > > > > > >>Azaliah wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, while bungee jumping, > >>> "josh" <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> shouted thusly: > >>> > >>> > >>>> Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design are quick to credit > >>>> God > >>>> with the creation and the ongoing supervision of the world, but are not > >>>> so > >>>> hasty to explain the origin of God and the source of the abilities > >>>> attributed to him. > >>> > >>> Evolutionists are quick to credit nothingness with > >>> the creation of everything. Before it all, there was > >>> nothingness. Then this nothingness expanded > >>> and here we are. > >>> > >>> And you call us religious? <chuckle> > >> > >>Not exactly "nothingness," just not matter or energy in the forms we see > >>today. Perhaps you should google "Quantum Physics", or "String Theory" > >>to see what current cosmology says about how the Universe came about. > > > > First of all, stop lying. > > > > 1) Yes, it was, according to evolutionists, > > "a state of nothingness". > > > > 2) I am well familiar with the various sciences. > > > > 3) Quantum Physics says nothing to disprove my statement. > > > > 4) String Theory isn't even a theory, just as macroevolution > > isn't, but those who like to make it all happen by itself, > > slap that word onto anything they think says it happened > > all on its own. I am very familiar with String Theory, > > as well as the fact that right now, it is imagination and > > has some unsolved equations. It may in fact be valid, > > which would not prove that the universe created itself, > > even though idiots will claim it did, but it may be valid > > and I do find it fascinating and if true, it would explain > > a few things. > > > > 5) The fact is, the universe did not exist. Then it did. > > You think a valid premise is that it created itself, > > no matter how much you try to deny that. And > > frankly son, the fact that you're trying to deny that > > it created itself, shows that you know what an assinine > > idea it is! And why would anyone deny that it created > > itself, while trying to deny that God created it? > > > > <chuckle> > > > > And don't bother trying to demand that I prove anything > > to you, while all you have offered is "Google it" and then, > > when cornered, you will whine that "science isn't in the > > business of proof", which is true, but which you should > > have also remembered, before claiming that what you > > present is a fact. > > > > Science is a method, not a conclusion and science > > is not forced into "Godless research". If the research > > leads one to believe that creation was necessary, > > then it is entirely scientific to say that, just as it would > > be for an arrowhead, which you did not see the creator > > of and cannot "prove" that an Indian did it, yet exclaim > > with glee, how you proved that they lived in that land. > > > > <smirk> > > > > Sir Isaac Newton was declared, in a recent poll among > > scientists, to be the greatest scientist that ever lived! > > > > Sir Isaac Newton had a friend who, like himself, was a great > > scientist, but he was an infidel, while Newton was a devout > > believer, and they often locked horns over this question, > > though their mutual interest in science drew them much > > together. Newton had a skillful mechanic make him a replica > > of our solar system in miniature. In the center was a large > > gilded ball representing the sun, and revolving around this > > were smaller balls fixed on the ends of arms of varying > > lengths, representing Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, > > Saturn, in their proper order. These balls were so geared > > together by cogs and belts as to move in perfect harmony > > by turning the crank. One day, as Newton sat reading in > > his study with his mechanism on a large table near him, > > his friend stepped in. He was scientist enough to recognize > > at a glance what was before him. Stepping up to it he slowly > > turned the crank, and with undisguised admiration watched > > the heavenly bodies all move in their relative speed in their > > orbits. Standing off a few feet, he exclaimed, "My! What an > > exquisite thing this is! Who made it?". > > > > Without looking up from his book, Newton answered, > > "Nobody!". Quickly turning to Newton the infidel said: > > "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked > > who made this thing?". Looking up, Newton solemnly > > assured him that nobody had made it but that the aggregation > > of matter so much admired had just happened to assume > > the form it was in. But the astonished infidel replied with > > some heat, "You must think I'm a fool! Of course somebody > > made it, and he is a genius, and I'd like to know who he is.". > > > > Laying his book aside, Newton arose and laid a hand on > > his friend's shoulder and said: "This thing is but a puny > > imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, > > and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is > > without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe > > that the great original from which the design is taken has > > come into being without either designer or maker! Now > > tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such > > incongruous conclusion?". The infidel was at once convinced > > and became a firm believer that "Jehovah, He is the God.". > > I Kings 18:39 > > > > -- > > > > Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved" > > > > <((>< <((>< <((>< > > > > "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." > > - John 17:17 > > . Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Chris wrote: > Bill M wrote: > > Your uneducated logic is appalling. Science, whether String or Quantum > > Physics is of the opinion that the Universe expanded from a very tight > > compact ball of energy into the Universe. There is NO data that supports the > > creation by your god. > > > > > 5) The fact is, the universe did not exist. Then it did. > > > You think a valid premise is that it created itself, > > > no matter how much you try to deny that. And > > > frankly son, the fact that you're trying to deny that > > > it created itself, shows that you know what an asinine > > > idea it is! And why would anyone deny that it created > > > itself, while trying to deny that God created it? > > You insist that the Universe had to have a creator, your god. Why does your > > god not need a creator? Oh! He always was and always will be. > > Well so could the Universe! > > > > I just answered this question in another thread, but for the sake or > argument, since he repeated his answer, I'll repeat mine. > > You contend that everything follows certains laws of physics and can be > observed, documented, and learned from these laws to determine truths > that explain your existence. These laws of physics only go so far in > their explanation. You still have to explain where everything came > from... Your laws of physics don't work! My guess is you don't understand physics. > They can't explain where > everything came from! You've come up with a bag of axioms that don't > solve the most important equations of all -- where did we come from and > why are we here? Don't give me google this or that, can you explain a > theory here (don't give me a link) that doesn't take someone through a > labyrinth of theories and require a reasonable person to jump through > hoops to believe? I've yet to see one. What preceded the known universe? A vacuum sounds reasonable. A vacuum is an absence of matter. However, there are particles that are called virtual particles, and these particles are found in vacuums. They don't have quite enough energy to spring into existence. But given an infinite amount of time, these particles could have fluctuated, causing a burst of energy, which is now called the Big Bang. Virtual particles are real, vacuums are real, the Big Bang is real, this is one plausible explanation for the known universe. > Now consider a God who _created_ a closed system which has time, space, > and all the laws of physics that accompany what we observe. HIlarious. You just dismissed the laws of physics in one paragraph and resurrect it with God in charge in the next. There is no evidence whatsoever for your God. Besides that, What are the chances that the first thing to form would be a super intelligent super powerful super evolved being? Well, the chances are zero. > Think about it. If you have a eternal, infinite God, why couldn't he created > a closed system that contains time and space and operates according to > certain laws.. First you have to provide evidence this omnipresent yet reclusive super being exists. You'd think it would be easy, him being so ever present and all. > Since God is outside this closed this, He doesn't have > to operate under these same laws; after all, he created the laws... > Thus he doesn't really need a beginning... After all, he created the > law as part of this closed system that requires that everything has a > beginning (cause/effect), but only in this closed system that we live. If he bothered to exist, God would have to be a closed system and subject to the laws of physics. You learned a phrase, "closed system," but don't grasp what it means. Kinda reminds me of when my New Age ex-wife and her gang of luddites discovered computers. Suddenly they were "networking" and talking about "interfacing." Get a real education instead of trying to impress people with jargon. Quote
Guest Chris Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Neil Kelsey wrote: > Chris wrote: > > Bill M wrote: > > > Your uneducated logic is appalling. Science, whether String or Quantum > > > Physics is of the opinion that the Universe expanded from a very tight > > > compact ball of energy into the Universe. There is NO data that supports the > > > creation by your god. > > > > > > > 5) The fact is, the universe did not exist. Then it did. > > > > You think a valid premise is that it created itself, > > > > no matter how much you try to deny that. And > > > > frankly son, the fact that you're trying to deny that > > > > it created itself, shows that you know what an asinine > > > > idea it is! And why would anyone deny that it created > > > > itself, while trying to deny that God created it? > > > You insist that the Universe had to have a creator, your god. Why does your > > > god not need a creator? Oh! He always was and always will be. > > > Well so could the Universe! > > > > > > > I just answered this question in another thread, but for the sake or > > argument, since he repeated his answer, I'll repeat mine. > > > > You contend that everything follows certains laws of physics and can be > > observed, documented, and learned from these laws to determine truths > > that explain your existence. These laws of physics only go so far in > > their explanation. You still have to explain where everything came > > from... Your laws of physics don't work! > > My guess is you don't understand physics. > > > They can't explain where > > everything came from! You've come up with a bag of axioms that don't > > solve the most important equations of all -- where did we come from and > > why are we here? Don't give me google this or that, can you explain a > > theory here (don't give me a link) that doesn't take someone through a > > labyrinth of theories and require a reasonable person to jump through > > hoops to believe? I've yet to see one. > > What preceded the known universe? A vacuum sounds reasonable. A vacuum > is an absence of matter. I assume by a vacuum you mean nothing? Or is a vacuum a special kind of nothing? > However, there are particles that are called > virtual particles, and these particles are found in vacuums. So there is something inside of nothing? > They don't have quite enough energy to spring into existence. But they don't exist... yet... Hmm, that doesn't look ilke you are jumping through hoops, very plausible... [smile] > But given an infinite amount of time, these particles could have fluctuated, causing > a burst of energy, which is now called the Big Bang. Virtual particles > are real, vacuums are real, the Big Bang is real, this is one plausible > explanation for the known universe. > > > Now consider a God who _created_ a closed system which has time, > space, > > and all the laws of physics that accompany what we observe. > > HIlarious. You just dismissed the laws of physics in one paragraph and > resurrect it with God in charge in the next. Absolutely, you don't agree? > > There is no evidence whatsoever for your God. Besides that, What are > the chances that the first thing to form would be a super intelligent > super powerful super evolved being? Well, the chances are zero. Why does he have to form? I just said that God is outside of this closed system where everything has to form. > > > Think about it. If you have a eternal, infinite God, why couldn't he created > > a closed system that contains time and space and operates according to > > certain laws.. > > First you have to provide evidence this omnipresent yet reclusive super > being exists. You'd think it would be easy, him being so ever present > and all. In this thread, I'm not trying to prove through evidence that God exists, only that it is more plausible to believe the God exists. [although I would like to convince you that God exists.] > > > Since God is outside this closed this, He doesn't have > > to operate under these same laws; after all, he created the laws... > > Thus he doesn't really need a beginning... After all, he created the > > law as part of this closed system that requires that everything has a > > beginning (cause/effect), but only in this closed system that we live. > > If he bothered to exist, God would have to be a closed system and > subject to the laws of physics. Not true, as I stated above... He would be eternal and infinite and not subject to any laws of physics... He created these laws of physics in our closed system of time and space. > You learned a phrase, "closed system," > but don't grasp what it means. Kinda reminds me of when my New Age > ex-wife and her gang of luddites discovered computers. Suddenly they > were "networking" and talking about "interfacing." Get a real education > instead of trying to impress people with jargon. Why you don't like my terminology? I can assure you that I'm not trying to impress people with my jargon. Quote
Guest tereshka@gmail.com Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Chris kirjoitti: > Bill M wrote: > > Your uneducated logic is appalling. Science, whether String or Quantum > > Physics is of the opinion that the Universe expanded from a very tight > > compact ball of energy into the Universe. There is NO data that supports the > > creation by your god. > > > > > 5) The fact is, the universe did not exist. Then it did. > > > You think a valid premise is that it created itself, > > > no matter how much you try to deny that. And > > > frankly son, the fact that you're trying to deny that > > > it created itself, shows that you know what an asinine > > > idea it is! And why would anyone deny that it created > > > itself, while trying to deny that God created it? > > You insist that the Universe had to have a creator, your god. Why does your > > god not need a creator? Oh! He always was and always will be. > > Well so could the Universe! > > > > I just answered this question in another thread, but for the sake or > argument, since he repeated his answer, I'll repeat mine. > > You contend that everything follows certains laws of physics and can be > observed, documented, and learned from these laws to determine truths > that explain your existence. These laws of physics only go so far in > their explanation. You still have to explain where everything came > from... Your laws of physics don't work! They can't explain where > everything came from! You've come up with a bag of axioms that don't > solve the most important equations of all -- where did we come from and > why are we here? Don't give me google this or that, can you explain a > theory here (don't give me a link) that doesn't take someone through a > labyrinth of theories and require a reasonable person to jump through > hoops to believe? I've yet to see one. > > Now consider a God who _created_ a closed system which has time, space, > and all the laws of physics that accompany what we observe. Think > about it. If you have a eternal, infinite God, why couldn't he created > a closed system that contains time and space and operates according to > certain laws.. Since God is outside this closed this, He doesn't have > to operate under these same laws; after all, he created the laws... > Thus he doesn't really need a beginning... After all, he created the > law as part of this closed system that requires that everything has a > beginning (cause/effect), but only in this closed system that we live. > > Chris Stephen Hawking feels very strongly that the laws of nature cannot cease to hold at singularities, including the Big Bang singularity, and has been searching for a way to frame the problem so that the laws of physics hold at all points in spacetime. He writes, "Cosmology cannot predict anything about the universe unless it makes some assumption about the initial conditions. Without such an assumption, all one can say is that things are as they are now because they were as they were at an earlier stage. Yet many people believe that science should be concerned only with the local laws which govern how the universe evolves in time. They would feel that the boundary conditions for the universe that determine how the universe began were a question for metaphysics or religion, rather than science." (Hawking, S. and R. Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time. 1996, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 75.) Now, given that he is a physicist, he phrases his thoughts in the language of physics and mathematics, which may or may not actually convey something to a layperson. I don't want to present a bunch of jargon that isn't intelligible, but I also don't want to talk down to these communities; as a compromise, I will present both a technical version and an English version of his theory. (I'm working from Hawking, S. and R. Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time. 1996, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 75-103. What he's come up with is the No-Boundary Proposal, paraphrased cutely as "the boundary condition of the Universe is that the Universe has no boundary." He starts with noting that one of his own theorems shows that according to general relativity, there must have been a singularity in our past - predicting that general relativity can't predict the universe, since the field equations aren't defined at the singularity. He believes that the principle that if it isn't forbidden, it happens somewhere, points to that the laws of physics must hold at all points in spacetime, or the laws would be broken and they wouldn't be laws after all. To implement this, he wants to take the path integral over only nonsingular Euclidean metrics, because one shouldn't include metrics with singularities whose action isn't defined. This reflects that breakdown of structure at a singularity shouldn't affect any physical measurements. (The Euclidean metric has well-defined action.) The two boundary conditions for such a metric are asymptotically Euclidean metrics and compact metrics without boundary. The asymptotically Euclidean metrics work when one is interested in observing at infinity; in cosmology, one is interested in measurements in a finite region. If you do the path integral over all asymptotically Euclidean metrics, you get basically the same thing as if you take it over all compact metrics without boundary, because for observations in finite regions, contributions from any disconnected metrics will dominate over those from connected asymptotically Euclidean metrics. Therefore, it makes more sense to take the path integral over all compact Euclidean metrics. He then goes on to show that this accounts for the universe we observe, by working out some properties of the wave function of the universe and showing that just as we can account for the pair creation of black holes we can account for the spontaneous creation of an exponentially expanding universe with this theory, except now it's creation out of nothing instead of the vacuum. With the No-Boundary Proposal, you basically join an Euclidean 4-sphere to a Lorentzian de Sitter solution and you get an expanding universe. For more realistic models, you add some matter fields. He even explains the density fluctuations in the universe doing this, avoiding some of the problems with the hot Big Bang theory. In plain English, he's saying: Hey, guys, we've been looking at this wrong. If laws are laws, they should hold all the time and everywhere, including the beginning of the universe. If you look at the geometry of spacetime (in general relativity, space and time form a four-dimensional spacetime where they combine) differently, the laws of physics hold all the time and everywhere and there's only one option that makes sense: that the universe is closed. Then, when you apply old quantum techniques we've already experimentally confirmed to that, you can explain the creation of the universe in the same way we explain the spontaneous appearance of other things, and the predictions explain the structure of the universe we see. I know this version is essentially an explanation without proof that anybody can verify. I do not know a good way around the problem that to really understand the proof requires understanding quantum mechanics, some general relativity and topology. Explaining each concept used above like the path integral, compact metrics, wave functions, etc will probably not be very enlightening all thrown at someone on usenet and effectively create more hoops to jump through. Especially when the readers' scientific fluency varies and is generally unknown. But the bottom line is, we have a scientific theory that describes the structure of the universe we see and it appears out of nowhere. Especially in view of the No-Boundary Proposal, the problem with creation is that it goes against Occam's Razor. There's a scientific explanation for how the universe came into being - why complicate it more by postulating something that cannot be verified by any observations? Creation out of nothing is something that we have theories to explain and have observationally confirmed with particle pair creation. The universe is ruled by probabilities (although what we see is a mixed state) - to argue otherwise is to argue with quantum mechanics and at this point rather fruitless, unless you're a brilliant physicist with a better theory that subsumes quantum mechanics as a special case. The same rules can explain the creation of the universe. As for why are we here, that's a subjective question. It's a value question. It's an important question, but it's also not a question that you need a deity to answer. Many different answers can be given, and the fact that you find yours in one specific religion doesn't mean that other types of answers are invalid. Neither "Where did we come from?" nor "Why are we here?" necessarily need religion. Laira > > "Azaliah" <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:4rasn25l4aitbosocmgki780857hrqlamd@4ax.com... > > > On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 00:49:47 GMT, while bungee jumping, Rich > > > Corinthian Leather <inexplicable@mysterious.net> shouted > > > thusly: > > > > > > > > >>Azaliah wrote: > > >> > > >>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, while bungee jumping, > > >>> "josh" <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> shouted thusly: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design are quick to credit > > >>>> God > > >>>> with the creation and the ongoing supervision of the world, but are not > > >>>> so > > >>>> hasty to explain the origin of God and the source of the abilities > > >>>> attributed to him. > > >>> > > >>> Evolutionists are quick to credit nothingness with > > >>> the creation of everything. Before it all, there was > > >>> nothingness. Then this nothingness expanded > > >>> and here we are. > > >>> > > >>> And you call us religious? <chuckle> I am certainly religious, in the sense that I believe mathematics is the language of nature and mathematics is the only religion that can prove it's a religion. (Goedel's Theorem) But in using mathematics to understand where we came from, I have a structured, logical system of thought that does, in fact, show that creation out of nowhere is plausible. You, on the other hand, have subjective opinions. Which, of course, you are entitled to, but don't expect to convince people with emotions. You feel this way; someone else feels that way; but we all work out the same theorems in the end, regardless of what language we speak or what religion we have. > > >>Not exactly "nothingness," just not matter or energy in the forms we see > > >>today. Perhaps you should google "Quantum Physics", or "String Theory" > > >>to see what current cosmology says about how the Universe came about. > > > > > > First of all, stop lying. > > > > > > 1) Yes, it was, according to evolutionists, > > > "a state of nothingness". > > > > > > 2) I am well familiar with the various sciences. > > > > > > 3) Quantum Physics says nothing to disprove my statement. Well, as it were, it does. See above. > > > 4) String Theory isn't even a theory, just as macroevolution > > > isn't, but those who like to make it all happen by itself, > > > slap that word onto anything they think says it happened > > > all on its own. I am very familiar with String Theory, > > > as well as the fact that right now, it is imagination and > > > has some unsolved equations. It may in fact be valid, > > > which would not prove that the universe created itself, > > > even though idiots will claim it did, but it may be valid > > > and I do find it fascinating and if true, it would explain > > > a few things. > > > > > > 5) The fact is, the universe did not exist. Then it did. > > > You think a valid premise is that it created itself, > > > no matter how much you try to deny that. And > > > frankly son, the fact that you're trying to deny that > > > it created itself, shows that you know what an assinine > > > idea it is! And why would anyone deny that it created > > > itself, while trying to deny that God created it? What's so asinine about a Universe creating itself? Nature abhors a naked singularity, not creation out of nothing. Our human psychology and wants and needs had nothing to do with the existence of the universe. We may not like how nature works, but that doesn't mean we can change it. > > > <chuckle> > > > > > > And don't bother trying to demand that I prove anything > > > to you, while all you have offered is "Google it" and then, > > > when cornered, you will whine that "science isn't in the > > > business of proof", which is true, but which you should > > > have also remembered, before claiming that what you > > > present is a fact. > > > > > > Science is a method, not a conclusion and science > > > is not forced into "Godless research". If the research > > > leads one to believe that creation was necessary, > > > then it is entirely scientific to say that, just as it would > > > be for an arrowhead, which you did not see the creator > > > of and cannot "prove" that an Indian did it, yet exclaim > > > with glee, how you proved that they lived in that land. But research shows just the opposite. > > > <smirk> > > > > > > Sir Isaac Newton was declared, in a recent poll among > > > scientists, to be the greatest scientist that ever lived! > > > > > > Sir Isaac Newton had a friend who, like himself, was a great > > > scientist, but he was an infidel, while Newton was a devout > > > believer, and they often locked horns over this question, > > > though their mutual interest in science drew them much > > > together. Newton had a skillful mechanic make him a replica > > > of our solar system in miniature. In the center was a large > > > gilded ball representing the sun, and revolving around this > > > were smaller balls fixed on the ends of arms of varying > > > lengths, representing Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, > > > Saturn, in their proper order. These balls were so geared > > > together by cogs and belts as to move in perfect harmony > > > by turning the crank. One day, as Newton sat reading in > > > his study with his mechanism on a large table near him, > > > his friend stepped in. He was scientist enough to recognize > > > at a glance what was before him. Stepping up to it he slowly > > > turned the crank, and with undisguised admiration watched > > > the heavenly bodies all move in their relative speed in their > > > orbits. Standing off a few feet, he exclaimed, "My! What an > > > exquisite thing this is! Who made it?". > > > > > > Without looking up from his book, Newton answered, > > > "Nobody!". Quickly turning to Newton the infidel said: > > > "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked > > > who made this thing?". Looking up, Newton solemnly > > > assured him that nobody had made it but that the aggregation > > > of matter so much admired had just happened to assume > > > the form it was in. But the astonished infidel replied with > > > some heat, "You must think I'm a fool! Of course somebody > > > made it, and he is a genius, and I'd like to know who he is.". > > > > > > Laying his book aside, Newton arose and laid a hand on > > > his friend's shoulder and said: "This thing is but a puny > > > imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, > > > and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is > > > without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe > > > that the great original from which the design is taken has > > > come into being without either designer or maker! Now > > > tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such > > > incongruous conclusion?". The infidel was at once convinced > > > and became a firm believer that "Jehovah, He is the God.". > > > I Kings 18:39 The clockwork universe has been thrown aside for quite a while. Your previously mentioned familiarity with science, I'm sure, means you already knew that quantum mechanics removes any vestige of the clockwork universe. > > > -- > > > > > > Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved" > > > > > > <((>< <((>< <((>< > > > > > > "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." > > > - John 17:17 > > > . Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.