rynodigsmusic 0 #651 May 5, 2008 Most of you are looking for evidence to believe, but I am afraid even if you had it, you would still not believe where it came from; the gift of faith only comes from submission and repentance. Its not at all about who is right or who is wrong, but about who wants it and who does not. Others are still undecided as to whether they accept salvation through Jesus or they dont, or they are decided and they just dont. No Christian is going to say that salvation is found elsewhere. If we just submit that good is good, then we can at least agree to a common ground. Whatever our chemistry is made up of with or without faith, it does feel good to do and be good. Can we agree that whatever is good, be it human emotions, feelings, or inspirations, needs whatever is evil to be seen? In otherwards we wouldnt know what good was without evil? Now understand I am not talking about extremes...simpler, would we know what truth was without knowing what a lie is?"We didn't start the fire" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #652 May 5, 2008 >No Christian is going to say that salvation is found elsewhere. "But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror . . ." (1 Cor 13) We are still children in our understanding, and see the truth only poorly. I think the primary difference between you and I is that I don't think I have perfect understanding; indeed, no one does. Thus I cannot say that there is only one road to salvation (or, indeed, only one salvation.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maadmax 0 #653 May 6, 2008 Quote>No Christian is going to say that salvation is found elsewhere. "But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror . . ." (1 Cor 13) We are still children in our understanding, and see the truth only poorly. I think the primary difference between you and I is that I don't think I have perfect understanding; indeed, no one does. Thus I cannot say that there is only one road to salvation (or, indeed, only one salvation.*** Dang! You were dead on, until you got to that last bit. The Bible can be very clear about some of the information that is presented. The "narrow path" of salvation happens to be one of the topics it clearly defines. Sorry for however politically incorrect that may sound. Look at the laws of physics, individual interpretation is not part of any of them. They are what they are. Why should spiritual Truth be any different? They both come from the same source. ______________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DannHuff 0 #654 May 6, 2008 Quote I don't believe in the supernatural. That is what atheism is, disbelief in the supernatural. As man's knowledge has increased over the years more and more of what people attributed to supernatural causes has been explained to not be of supernatural cause. Deitys make no logical sense. There is no evidence of anything supernatural and by definition there never will be any. You believe because you want to believe. That is fine, but don't make false claims of evidence when there isn't any and never will be. No one questions whether or not the biblical Jesus existed. He most likely did exist. What I and all atheists disbelieve is the so called miracles the he is said to have performed and the resurection. There just isn't any evidence to support that. Why don't you gather evidence for yourself. Tell God you don't believe in Him, and if He is really there, ask Him to reveal Himself to you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,406 #655 May 6, 2008 >The Bible can be very clear about some of the information that is presented. I don't think it can. Every time we turn around, another part of the Bible is getting redefined as allegory or metaphor. That leads me to believe that we don't really know what's metaphor and what's literally correct. Indeed, the above passage says that explicitly; we see only poor and imperfect reflections in a mirror. >Look at the laws of physics, individual interpretation is not part of any of them. Agreed. The Bible is not a physics book. >They both come from the same source. No, they're sorta opposite. Science is considered valid when evidence arises to validate it; it is discarded when evidence arises that disproves it. Faith is clung to in the absence of any evidence. That's why it's called faith. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #656 May 6, 2008 QuoteWhy don't you gather evidence for yourself. Tell God you don't believe in Him, and if He is really there, ask Him to reveal Himself to you. Is that supposed to be a joke? There is no evidence of any deity to gather. I just wrote that God doesn't exist and that I don't believe in him. He can read it if he does exist and respond. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,406 #657 May 6, 2008 >Tell God you don't believe in Him, and if He is really there, ask >Him to reveal Himself to you. You could try something similar. Get on an airplane. Jump and ask God to save you if he loves you. If God does save you, then that's hard proof he exists. If Helmut Cloth saves you, then not so much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,635 #658 May 6, 2008 Quote Why don't you gather evidence for yourself. Tell God you don't believe in Him, and if He is really there, ask Him to reveal Himself to you. Which one? Trying all of them would take a very long time.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,257 #659 May 6, 2008 Quote Quote I don't believe in the supernatural. That is what atheism is, disbelief in the supernatural. As man's knowledge has increased over the years more and more of what people attributed to supernatural causes has been explained to not be of supernatural cause. Deitys make no logical sense. There is no evidence of anything supernatural and by definition there never will be any. You believe because you want to believe. That is fine, but don't make false claims of evidence when there isn't any and never will be. No one questions whether or not the biblical Jesus existed. He most likely did exist. What I and all atheists disbelieve is the so called miracles the he is said to have performed and the resurection. There just isn't any evidence to support that. Why don't you gather evidence for yourself. Tell God you don't believe in Him, and if He is really there, ask Him to reveal Himself to you. Done. So, uh, now what?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mockingbird 0 #660 May 7, 2008 QuoteQuoteThe Cosmological Argument: 1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause. (This is the Law of Causality.) 2. The universe had a beginning. 3. Therefore, the universe had a cause. It's self-evident that the cause of the universe had to be greater than the universe, greater than the natural world... and therefore beyond the natural world. That cause would have to be supernatural ("beyond" the "natural"). Interesting argument, but, unfortunately, it is faulty logic. It makes the assumption that the universe had a beginning. The universe as we know it emerged from a singularity. The beginning of time occurred at the Big Bang. That doesn't mean that the universe came into existence at that point, only that any information of how the singularity came to be is lost and unknowable by man, at least with our current level of understanding. There are more plausible ideas than a supernatural being creating the universe at that point. One possibility is that the universe is cyclical, and the Big Bang, modeled mathematically, is an instant represented numerically with division by zero. Note that the Greek word logos (sorry, the greek letters didn't render) is translates to both word and, perhaps more importantly, ratio. "Division by zero"??? Yeah right. There was no time before the Big Bang, there was no space before the Big Bang, and there was no matter before the Big Bang; there was no "before" before the Big Bang. The universe is expanding, so it had to have a beginning-- the Big Bang. This isn't an assumption. What you wrote above is speculation only. Everything started with one event.Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mockingbird 0 #661 May 7, 2008 Quote Quote Eyewitnesses have left their testimony about Jesus for posterity, tho' some, who by nature object to the whole idea of Jesus (especially his claims and his miracles which validated his claims), will only refer to that testimony as "hearsay evidence," even tho' one of the greatest legal minds ever known, Simon Greenleaf, considered that testimony to be valid, and "would have been received in evidence in any court of justice, without the slightest hesitation." (p. 9, 10 in his 1874 book, The Testimony of the Evangelists-- referring, that is, to the authors of the gospels, NOT televangelists!! A Treatise on the Law of Evidence and is considered a classic of American jurisprudence. Greanleaf is not without his critics. NO one is without critics. That means nothing. I'll stick by Greenleaf's opinion; after all, he was a converted atheist... No wonder he's "not without his critics."Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georgerussia 0 #662 May 7, 2008 Quote There was no time before the Big Bang, there was no space before the Big Bang, and there was no matter before the Big Bang; there was no "before" before the Big Bang. The universe is expanding, so it had to have a beginning-- the Big Bang. This isn't an assumption. It's the same for the God. Usually it goes in rounds, like "so how everything started when there was nothing - where the first matter came from?" question from Christians, and the opposite question "how everything started when there was nothing - where the God came from?" from atheists. Funny thing that Christians could not accept that something relatively simple as matter "came from nothing", but have no problem accepting that something that complex as supernatural deity - a God - came from nothing as well.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mockingbird 0 #663 May 7, 2008 Sorry, don't have the source for the other list. Maybe you can find it. The sources who mentioned Tiberius Caesar and what was said about him are irrelevant to me.Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lindsey 0 #664 May 7, 2008 "Division by zero"??? Yeah right. There was no time before the Big Bang, there was no space before the Big Bang, and there was no matter before the Big Bang; there was no "before" before the Big Bang. The universe is expanding, so it had to have a beginning-- the Big Bang. This isn't an assumption. What you wrote above is speculation only. Everything started with one event Where did you come up with that?-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mockingbird 0 #665 May 7, 2008 QuoteQuoteAccording to the Cambridge Dictionary, supernatural means: "supernatural (adjective): caused by forces that cannot be explained by science the supernatural (noun): things that cannot be explained by science" I don't believe in the supernatural. That is what atheism is, disbelief in the supernatural. As man's knowledge has increased over the years more and more of what people attributed to supernatural causes has been explained to not be of supernatural cause. Deitys make no logical sense. There is no evidence of anything supernatural and by definition there never will be any. I think the supernatural is logical! There's no other way to explain how the universe came into existence. We know it hasn't always existed; it had a beginning. Something caused it to come into existence. So, I'd say that the universe itself is evidence of something supernatural--- i.e., its cause. QuoteYou believe because you want to believe. That is fine, but don't make false claims of evidence when there isn't any and never will be. No one questions whether or not the biblical Jesus existed. Actually, some do. Quote He most likely did exist. What I and all atheists disbelieve is the so called miracles the he is said to have performed and the resurection. There just isn't any evidence to support that. Sure there is. You just reject it as evidence. It's called eye-witness testimony. We have NO reason not to believe what those witnesses wrote down for us or told others to write down for us as testimony. And they back up what they said with their lives.Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mockingbird 0 #666 May 7, 2008 Quote"Division by zero"??? Yeah right. There was no time before the Big Bang, there was no space before the Big Bang, and there was no matter before the Big Bang; there was no "before" before the Big Bang. The universe is expanding, so it had to have a beginning-- the Big Bang. This isn't an assumption. What you wrote above is speculation only. Everything started with one event Where did you come up with that? Common sense.Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #667 May 7, 2008 QuoteThere was no time before the Big Bang The concept of time prior to the singularity is non-sensical. Time exists within the universe, not the other way around. Quotethere was no space before the Big Bang The concept of space before the singularity is non-sensical. Space exists within the universe, not the other way around. Quotethere was no "before" before the Big Bang. True. The universe is eternal. It exists independently of time, without beginning or end. The observable universe, on the other hand, is finite. QuoteThe universe is expanding, so it had to have a beginning-- the Big Bang. This isn't an assumption. It's not an assumption; it's an incorrect statement. There is a difference between the observable universe and the universe. The observable universe is part of the universe, but not the whole universe. The observable universe began with a singularity, the Big Bang. From that Big Bang time, space and matter emerged. Just as a black hole has an unknowable history prior to existence as a singularity, so, likely, did the universe, although prior is rather meaningless in such a context. An eternal cycle is a more plausible explanation. There is no requirement for a supernatural being to be a prime mover.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mockingbird 0 #668 May 7, 2008 QuoteIt's not an assumption; it's an incorrect statement. There is a difference between the observable universe and the universe. The observable universe is part of the universe, but not the whole universe. The observable universe began with a singularity, the Big Bang. From that Big Bang time, space and matter emerged. Just as a black hole has an unknowable history prior to existence as a singularity, so, likely, did the universe, although prior is rather meaningless in such a context. An eternal cycle is a more plausible explanation. There is no requirement for a supernatural being to be a prime mover. Where is your evidence of an "eternal cycle"? Matter cannot be eternal because of entropy.Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,257 #669 May 7, 2008 QuoteSorry, don't have the source for the other list. Maybe you can find it. The sources who mentioned Tiberius Caesar and what was said about him are irrelevant to me. So you're just flinging unsubstantiated claims around, then?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,257 #670 May 7, 2008 QuoteWe have NO reason not to believe what those witnesses wrote down for us or told others to write down for us as testimony. So you believe Herodotus when he talks about gold digging ants the size of dogs, and tribesmen living in the desert with their faces in their chests? After all, he says that all his information comes from eyewitnessess.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georgerussia 0 #671 May 7, 2008 Quote Science certainly has limitations. It can't explain that which is beyond the natural, even when that which is beyond the natural has interacted with the natural and left "it's" fingerprints on the natural. That's what we are looking for. If Christians just claim that there is a God named Jesus who lives on Pluto and doesn't give shit about anyone else, there would be probably no questions at all. This way the fact whether this Jesus really exists or not is not relevantl for most people, since it does not affect anyone's life. However Christians make it different. After they allege that God exist, they start claiming that this God requires all of us to behave in some specific way, and doing so will benefit everyone. This is where we start getting problems, since the stake is now much higher, and therefore we need at least some evidence to support those changes. That's why nobody really challenges existence of Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, and you see little to no people challenging existence of Buddha, but you see a lot of people challenging existence of Christian God. Since you cannot prove the existence of your God, and cannot explain why your God cannot prove it himself - being supernatural it should not have any problem to him. Fine; let's give you some handicap and assume that some God exist. Now you need to prove that this God _does_ want something we should do. This means your God must iteract with us in a way, which should be obvious to those people who do NOT do the stuff he wants us to do. Think of it like the police - they make it clear that going over speed limit is wrong. Therefore you must have _scientific_ evidence of how God iteracts to a person who is not doing things right, and how the things changed after the person started doing things right. Could you share it?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JackC 0 #672 May 7, 2008 QuoteMatter cannot be eternal because of entropy. Please, please, for the love of God, stop getting your science from creationist websites. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DannHuff 0 #673 May 7, 2008 Is that supposed to be a joke? There is no evidence of any deity to gather. I just wrote that God doesn't exist and that I don't believe in him. He can read it if he does exist and respond. The evidence I was suggesting was one of a personal experience of God. If He really is there then what better proof than an answer to a request to know Him. The bit about tell Him you don't believe was a serious one, as God respects us for being honest with Him. Actually the risk/reward is in your favour. Very little risk if it does not work and infinite upside if it does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DannHuff 0 #654 May 6, 2008 Quote I don't believe in the supernatural. That is what atheism is, disbelief in the supernatural. As man's knowledge has increased over the years more and more of what people attributed to supernatural causes has been explained to not be of supernatural cause. Deitys make no logical sense. There is no evidence of anything supernatural and by definition there never will be any. You believe because you want to believe. That is fine, but don't make false claims of evidence when there isn't any and never will be. No one questions whether or not the biblical Jesus existed. He most likely did exist. What I and all atheists disbelieve is the so called miracles the he is said to have performed and the resurection. There just isn't any evidence to support that. Why don't you gather evidence for yourself. Tell God you don't believe in Him, and if He is really there, ask Him to reveal Himself to you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #655 May 6, 2008 >The Bible can be very clear about some of the information that is presented. I don't think it can. Every time we turn around, another part of the Bible is getting redefined as allegory or metaphor. That leads me to believe that we don't really know what's metaphor and what's literally correct. Indeed, the above passage says that explicitly; we see only poor and imperfect reflections in a mirror. >Look at the laws of physics, individual interpretation is not part of any of them. Agreed. The Bible is not a physics book. >They both come from the same source. No, they're sorta opposite. Science is considered valid when evidence arises to validate it; it is discarded when evidence arises that disproves it. Faith is clung to in the absence of any evidence. That's why it's called faith. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #656 May 6, 2008 QuoteWhy don't you gather evidence for yourself. Tell God you don't believe in Him, and if He is really there, ask Him to reveal Himself to you. Is that supposed to be a joke? There is no evidence of any deity to gather. I just wrote that God doesn't exist and that I don't believe in him. He can read it if he does exist and respond. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #657 May 6, 2008 >Tell God you don't believe in Him, and if He is really there, ask >Him to reveal Himself to you. You could try something similar. Get on an airplane. Jump and ask God to save you if he loves you. If God does save you, then that's hard proof he exists. If Helmut Cloth saves you, then not so much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #658 May 6, 2008 Quote Why don't you gather evidence for yourself. Tell God you don't believe in Him, and if He is really there, ask Him to reveal Himself to you. Which one? Trying all of them would take a very long time.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #659 May 6, 2008 Quote Quote I don't believe in the supernatural. That is what atheism is, disbelief in the supernatural. As man's knowledge has increased over the years more and more of what people attributed to supernatural causes has been explained to not be of supernatural cause. Deitys make no logical sense. There is no evidence of anything supernatural and by definition there never will be any. You believe because you want to believe. That is fine, but don't make false claims of evidence when there isn't any and never will be. No one questions whether or not the biblical Jesus existed. He most likely did exist. What I and all atheists disbelieve is the so called miracles the he is said to have performed and the resurection. There just isn't any evidence to support that. Why don't you gather evidence for yourself. Tell God you don't believe in Him, and if He is really there, ask Him to reveal Himself to you. Done. So, uh, now what?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #660 May 7, 2008 QuoteQuoteThe Cosmological Argument: 1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause. (This is the Law of Causality.) 2. The universe had a beginning. 3. Therefore, the universe had a cause. It's self-evident that the cause of the universe had to be greater than the universe, greater than the natural world... and therefore beyond the natural world. That cause would have to be supernatural ("beyond" the "natural"). Interesting argument, but, unfortunately, it is faulty logic. It makes the assumption that the universe had a beginning. The universe as we know it emerged from a singularity. The beginning of time occurred at the Big Bang. That doesn't mean that the universe came into existence at that point, only that any information of how the singularity came to be is lost and unknowable by man, at least with our current level of understanding. There are more plausible ideas than a supernatural being creating the universe at that point. One possibility is that the universe is cyclical, and the Big Bang, modeled mathematically, is an instant represented numerically with division by zero. Note that the Greek word logos (sorry, the greek letters didn't render) is translates to both word and, perhaps more importantly, ratio. "Division by zero"??? Yeah right. There was no time before the Big Bang, there was no space before the Big Bang, and there was no matter before the Big Bang; there was no "before" before the Big Bang. The universe is expanding, so it had to have a beginning-- the Big Bang. This isn't an assumption. What you wrote above is speculation only. Everything started with one event.Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #661 May 7, 2008 Quote Quote Eyewitnesses have left their testimony about Jesus for posterity, tho' some, who by nature object to the whole idea of Jesus (especially his claims and his miracles which validated his claims), will only refer to that testimony as "hearsay evidence," even tho' one of the greatest legal minds ever known, Simon Greenleaf, considered that testimony to be valid, and "would have been received in evidence in any court of justice, without the slightest hesitation." (p. 9, 10 in his 1874 book, The Testimony of the Evangelists-- referring, that is, to the authors of the gospels, NOT televangelists!! A Treatise on the Law of Evidence and is considered a classic of American jurisprudence. Greanleaf is not without his critics. NO one is without critics. That means nothing. I'll stick by Greenleaf's opinion; after all, he was a converted atheist... No wonder he's "not without his critics."Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #662 May 7, 2008 Quote There was no time before the Big Bang, there was no space before the Big Bang, and there was no matter before the Big Bang; there was no "before" before the Big Bang. The universe is expanding, so it had to have a beginning-- the Big Bang. This isn't an assumption. It's the same for the God. Usually it goes in rounds, like "so how everything started when there was nothing - where the first matter came from?" question from Christians, and the opposite question "how everything started when there was nothing - where the God came from?" from atheists. Funny thing that Christians could not accept that something relatively simple as matter "came from nothing", but have no problem accepting that something that complex as supernatural deity - a God - came from nothing as well.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #663 May 7, 2008 Sorry, don't have the source for the other list. Maybe you can find it. The sources who mentioned Tiberius Caesar and what was said about him are irrelevant to me.Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #664 May 7, 2008 "Division by zero"??? Yeah right. There was no time before the Big Bang, there was no space before the Big Bang, and there was no matter before the Big Bang; there was no "before" before the Big Bang. The universe is expanding, so it had to have a beginning-- the Big Bang. This isn't an assumption. What you wrote above is speculation only. Everything started with one event Where did you come up with that?-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #665 May 7, 2008 QuoteQuoteAccording to the Cambridge Dictionary, supernatural means: "supernatural (adjective): caused by forces that cannot be explained by science the supernatural (noun): things that cannot be explained by science" I don't believe in the supernatural. That is what atheism is, disbelief in the supernatural. As man's knowledge has increased over the years more and more of what people attributed to supernatural causes has been explained to not be of supernatural cause. Deitys make no logical sense. There is no evidence of anything supernatural and by definition there never will be any. I think the supernatural is logical! There's no other way to explain how the universe came into existence. We know it hasn't always existed; it had a beginning. Something caused it to come into existence. So, I'd say that the universe itself is evidence of something supernatural--- i.e., its cause. QuoteYou believe because you want to believe. That is fine, but don't make false claims of evidence when there isn't any and never will be. No one questions whether or not the biblical Jesus existed. Actually, some do. Quote He most likely did exist. What I and all atheists disbelieve is the so called miracles the he is said to have performed and the resurection. There just isn't any evidence to support that. Sure there is. You just reject it as evidence. It's called eye-witness testimony. We have NO reason not to believe what those witnesses wrote down for us or told others to write down for us as testimony. And they back up what they said with their lives.Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #666 May 7, 2008 Quote"Division by zero"??? Yeah right. There was no time before the Big Bang, there was no space before the Big Bang, and there was no matter before the Big Bang; there was no "before" before the Big Bang. The universe is expanding, so it had to have a beginning-- the Big Bang. This isn't an assumption. What you wrote above is speculation only. Everything started with one event Where did you come up with that? Common sense.Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #667 May 7, 2008 QuoteThere was no time before the Big Bang The concept of time prior to the singularity is non-sensical. Time exists within the universe, not the other way around. Quotethere was no space before the Big Bang The concept of space before the singularity is non-sensical. Space exists within the universe, not the other way around. Quotethere was no "before" before the Big Bang. True. The universe is eternal. It exists independently of time, without beginning or end. The observable universe, on the other hand, is finite. QuoteThe universe is expanding, so it had to have a beginning-- the Big Bang. This isn't an assumption. It's not an assumption; it's an incorrect statement. There is a difference between the observable universe and the universe. The observable universe is part of the universe, but not the whole universe. The observable universe began with a singularity, the Big Bang. From that Big Bang time, space and matter emerged. Just as a black hole has an unknowable history prior to existence as a singularity, so, likely, did the universe, although prior is rather meaningless in such a context. An eternal cycle is a more plausible explanation. There is no requirement for a supernatural being to be a prime mover.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #668 May 7, 2008 QuoteIt's not an assumption; it's an incorrect statement. There is a difference between the observable universe and the universe. The observable universe is part of the universe, but not the whole universe. The observable universe began with a singularity, the Big Bang. From that Big Bang time, space and matter emerged. Just as a black hole has an unknowable history prior to existence as a singularity, so, likely, did the universe, although prior is rather meaningless in such a context. An eternal cycle is a more plausible explanation. There is no requirement for a supernatural being to be a prime mover. Where is your evidence of an "eternal cycle"? Matter cannot be eternal because of entropy.Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #669 May 7, 2008 QuoteSorry, don't have the source for the other list. Maybe you can find it. The sources who mentioned Tiberius Caesar and what was said about him are irrelevant to me. So you're just flinging unsubstantiated claims around, then?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #670 May 7, 2008 QuoteWe have NO reason not to believe what those witnesses wrote down for us or told others to write down for us as testimony. So you believe Herodotus when he talks about gold digging ants the size of dogs, and tribesmen living in the desert with their faces in their chests? After all, he says that all his information comes from eyewitnessess.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #671 May 7, 2008 Quote Science certainly has limitations. It can't explain that which is beyond the natural, even when that which is beyond the natural has interacted with the natural and left "it's" fingerprints on the natural. That's what we are looking for. If Christians just claim that there is a God named Jesus who lives on Pluto and doesn't give shit about anyone else, there would be probably no questions at all. This way the fact whether this Jesus really exists or not is not relevantl for most people, since it does not affect anyone's life. However Christians make it different. After they allege that God exist, they start claiming that this God requires all of us to behave in some specific way, and doing so will benefit everyone. This is where we start getting problems, since the stake is now much higher, and therefore we need at least some evidence to support those changes. That's why nobody really challenges existence of Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, and you see little to no people challenging existence of Buddha, but you see a lot of people challenging existence of Christian God. Since you cannot prove the existence of your God, and cannot explain why your God cannot prove it himself - being supernatural it should not have any problem to him. Fine; let's give you some handicap and assume that some God exist. Now you need to prove that this God _does_ want something we should do. This means your God must iteract with us in a way, which should be obvious to those people who do NOT do the stuff he wants us to do. Think of it like the police - they make it clear that going over speed limit is wrong. Therefore you must have _scientific_ evidence of how God iteracts to a person who is not doing things right, and how the things changed after the person started doing things right. Could you share it?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #672 May 7, 2008 QuoteMatter cannot be eternal because of entropy. Please, please, for the love of God, stop getting your science from creationist websites. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DannHuff 0 #673 May 7, 2008 Is that supposed to be a joke? There is no evidence of any deity to gather. I just wrote that God doesn't exist and that I don't believe in him. He can read it if he does exist and respond. The evidence I was suggesting was one of a personal experience of God. If He really is there then what better proof than an answer to a request to know Him. The bit about tell Him you don't believe was a serious one, as God respects us for being honest with Him. Actually the risk/reward is in your favour. Very little risk if it does not work and infinite upside if it does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DannHuff 0 #674 May 7, 2008 You could try something similar. Get on an airplane. Jump and ask God to save you if he loves you. If God does save you, then that's hard proof he exists. If Helmut Cloth saves you, then not so much. Bill - On what basis should I conclude that such a jump would work? There is a world of difference of asking God an honest question and waiting for an answer, than giving an ultimatum on a course of action we ourselves choose. Unfortunately (in reality fortunately) we cannot instruct God to do what we want Him to. He makes His own rules. In your example I would expect to go splat if I tried it. I believe the Bible communicates to us His boundaries about this life and on how He relates to us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DannHuff 0 #675 May 7, 2008 Quote Which one? Trying all of them would take a very long time. Yes, you have a point. I'm happy to provide a recommendation to help you expediate the process. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yes, you have a point. I'm happy to provide a recommendation to help you expediate the process.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites