- This topic is empty.
- Posts
King Solomon set a throne in the forest for the house of the unevoled! they received treasures of gold and silver, accounted as worthy of Gods creatons,
why is there throne not now?1Ki 10:21 ¶ And all king Solomon's drinking vessels [were of] gold, and all the vessels of the house of the forest of Lebanon [were of] pure gold; none [were of] silver: it was nothing accounted of in the days of Solomon.
1Ki 10:22 For the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the navy of Hiram: once in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks.
yes from the wisest Man on earth, and within this Kingdom, was allowed all the free choice of how to believe, even Solomon’s wives had alters…see God is all in all, lower gods fight for power, and how ever you look and acknowledge God is good, and sincere may not be sinful, and is called sinful from some… just because there judgement doesn’t allow for any other system of God to be worship.
In SOME OTHER WORDS SOLOMON SAW EVOLVOLING…AS THE TRANSPORTED CREATON FROM ALTERS WITH NO FAITH… TO A SIMPLE FAITH AND HOPE
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 27 2008,20:45) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 25 2008,19:56) I think you have nailed the point actually. No I do not respect beliefs, because they are just ideas and in my opinion religious ideas are very often loony ideas.
Except for your own beliefs of course, such as “The Singularity that did it all on its own” theory.Does that mean that you are intolerant of others?
You already know my water-tight answer to that. You have a dogmatic 'knowledge' of the big bang, whereas I realise my own ignorance about it.Stuart
Hi professor t8
Quote The chances of a singularity coming from nothing is impossible.
Does your bible of the big bang say that? I wouldn’t know.Quote Then couple that with the chances of a singularity that just started expanding and as a result galaxies, suns, planets, atoms, life, and bananas etc, is more than 1 billion billion billionth of a percent and each moment of time that increases because the singularity is still doing stuff. Actually it is also impossible for a singularity to do all these things on it's own.
So sayeth the holy big bang bible I guess. I’ve no real idea whether indeed it was a singularity. That model does explain a lot, but we can’t know that with any certainty. You seem sure though. What is it like to have a unique comprehensive knowledge of baryon/anti-baryon separation particle physics? I bet scientists are beating down your door to interview you on the subject.Quote I would say based on your own thinking, there is more chance that there is a creator from the odds you gave.
I did say less than 0.0000000000000000001%. I think probably much less. Would you care to share your calculation of the probability of a creator? No cheating now, we can both use the anthropic principle, you know!Stuart
Hi the good professor
Quote Hmm those Boy Scouts.
Indeed. Hmm.Quote They should teach that we are apes right?
We are, so yes I guess so. Anything else is a lie that the little boys should be told they will burn forever for telling.Quote Yeah I can see it now. Scout membership would increase 5 fold.
I think it might. People would no longer have to lie to gain entry. I’m not sure why they would want entry into an organisation that makes such bizarre rules as having to believe in things. I have wondered what would happen if I reregistered here and paraded as a devout believer, but asking the same questions I do now. On what grounds could you limit my posting privileges then? I guess the law in a democracy usually allows private organisations to discriminate for the purpose of selecting members…up until the time when they convince their members that they need to be ready to take cyanide in order to catch their ride to heaven on a comet. That is the extreme result of insisting on religious, or any ideological belief.Quote Actually recognition of a creator is wise. The who ape thing is just plain funny.
You laugh at your ancestors. That is not very kind. You tell people here all the time what you think is wise. You cannot produce a shred of evidence for the claim that creator belief is wise. Is it wise if it directly contradicts reality, which it does?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 28 2008,18:55) Hi professor t8 Quote The chances of a singularity coming from nothing is impossible.
Does your bible of the big bang say that? I wouldn’t know.
Hi.Um if there was nothing and then something, then how does nothing produce something unless the nothing is something too?
In other words, the Big Bang must have had a cause. Not proof of a God on it's own, but a pointer and when added to all the other things that the singularity did, it soon becomes obvious that it is silly to think that it didn't have any assistance.
I mean really, a singularity that changed into a universe. Sounds like what that guy said on that posted video a week or so back. Evolutionist's believe that frogs can become princes figuratively speaking. All sounds like a fairytale to me Stu.
Tell me how something comes from nothing. Think of nothing. Then imagine something emerging from that. Your immediate reaction to such is where did that come from. What made that happen. You just don't think it appeared out of nothing with no assistance at all from anything do you? If so, then is the cause really nothing?
If you saw a golf ball coming at you, surely you wouldn't think that it was possible that it just appeared? Even a singularity is something Stu.
It's not magic.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 29 2008,21:37) Tell me how something comes from nothing. Think of nothing. Then imagine something emerging from that. Your immediate reaction to such is where did that come from. What made that happen. You just don't think it appeared out of nothing with no assistance at all from anything do you? If so, then is the cause really nothing? If you saw a golf ball coming at you, surely you wouldn't think that it was possible that it just appeared? Even a singularity is something Stu.
It's not magic.
Don't ask me to provide support for your assertion. Can you tell us why it is impossible for an effect not to have a cause, or not?Stuart
Quote Tell me more about why the big bang has to have a cause. Why does it? It's weird that T8 said: “Its not magic” because I was going to ask stu if when he sees a magician produces a card from thin air, he really thinks the card comes from nowhere.
(Stu, he was palming the card. It already existed.)
Quote Can you tell us why it is impossible for an effect not to have a cause, or not? “At the very least, defenders of quantum cosmology will be faced with the task of explaining how their complex and law-governed first state can be an exception to the causal principle.”
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/cause.htmlActually, this argument probably will go nowhere.
Someone asked:
If you can imagine an uncaused God, can you imagine an uncaused bang?I guess that's a good point.
So whether the universe or God was uncaused, something was. I think that just may be magic.
As I wrote in the thread on this topic, you might be able to discuss causality in the empirical world but the 'time' leading up to the big bang (whatever time means in that context) is not currently part of the empirical world and nor is it likely to be, so the speculation about whether there was a cause of it is pointless at the moment. There is no good argument that the big bang had a cause. I can imagine an uncaused bang because there is compelling evidence that there was such a bang. The cause remains unknown. As no one can tell me what a god is, and there is no evidence for one then speculating about its cause seems less important than determining its existance at all.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 30 2008,18:50) There is no good argument that the big bang had a cause.
Ha ha. Shouldn't that be “There is no good argument that the big bang didn't have a cause”.I mean a big bang just appears from nothing. What next?
If I wait long enough, will 1 million dollars appear in front of me out of nothing. I mean surely there is more chance of that, as the material that 1 million dollars consists of already exists. In other words it should be more feasible as the first hurdle is out of the way.
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 06 2008,00:02) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 30 2008,18:50) There is no good argument that the big bang had a cause.
Ha ha. Shouldn't that be “There is no good argument that the big bang didn't have a cause”.I mean a big bang just appears from nothing. What next?
If I wait long enough, will 1 million dollars appear in front of me out of nothing. I mean surely there is more chance of that, as the material that 1 million dollars consists of already exists. In other words it should be more feasible as the first hurdle is out of the way.
You really need to read more carefully. I know you don't understand any of it, but at least try!In case you have caused unnecessary confusion, let me restate “There is no good argument that the big bang had a cause”.
Stuart
I understand it alright, I have had a strong interest in such things since School, and it has never wained.
But I have learned things that are beyond such things and are greater than these things.
I have also learned that Science is really just mans attempt to show the truth about something. Sometimes it is right and other times it is wrong and sometimes absurdly wrong.You know what I believe, i.e, that God created the universe. Now for you, “how does a singularity come out of nothing”?
When you have answered that one, then please answer how it became the cosmos unaided, i.e, how does the singularity expands to become the universe and produces light, material, elements, and life on its own (unaided)? We all wait with baited breath.
Please do not include magic as that is not considered proof, unless you are willing to explain how the pulleys and ropes work.
I repeat, please answer how something comes from nothing, if I am satisfied with the answer, then we are in a good position to progress.
t8 when you find something intelligent to add to a discussion on cosmology, why don't you find an appropriate thread to post it in. I'm not holding my breath.
Stuart
OK, just as I thought. You don't have any explanation whatsoever to explain how something came from nothing, so you try to change the subject.
You are STUMPED Stu.
So now you can see that you indeed have a belief with no proof at all. The very thing you accuse others of. Funny how those who often accuse are actually guilty of the same thing.
At least believing in God is logical Stu, as the cosmos has all the marks of a creator and it is there for all to see
I am even at awe at his code because volumes can be written even about one gene.
YOU BELIEVE THAT SOMETHING CAME FROM NOTHING. THIS IS YOUR RELIGION.
Can you see how absurd it is to think that something can come from nothing. It's really a no brainer isn't it Stu?
I believe that God exists outside of this cosmos and inhabits this creation by his Spirit.
Therefore the rules of this cosmos do not apply to him because that would be like looking at a house and then limiting the builder to the house that he made.
So saying that God came from nothing is applying logic from this cosmos to another paradigm. Surely you should know that before time and the Big Bang that it would be kind of silly to apply our laws to then.
You believe that the singularity just popped out of nothing. Given the laws and rules of this paradigm, it seems a rather foolish thing to believe in don't you think?
As mentioned earlier on with you, it boils down to this:
There isn't a cause.
There is a cause.The first one is absurd, so let's go with the second.
The cause is not a living thing.
The cause is God or a living thing.So if it isn't living, then you have the difficulty of explaining life and self awareness from non-life. Even if you hold this view, you then have to say that there has always been something inanimate, for all eternity that changes and changes, and finally exploded and produced life so that it could know itself.
In the end Stu, even with no experience in God, with no insight to know he exists, when faced with the other options, belief in a creator is not as silly as you think.
For surely all the options seem silly, yet belief in a creator is really the most logical belief of them all. Belief in God seems like fiction to those who have no experience of him, but of all the options (even without experience of the creator), belief in a creator is still the best explanation.
The edited highlights of your last post:
Quote before time and the Big Bang that it would be kind of silly to apply our laws to then. You believe that the singularity just popped out of nothing. Given the laws and rules of this paradigm, it seems a rather foolish thing to believe in don't you think?
As mentioned earlier on with you, it boils down to this:
There is a cause.
There isn't a cause.The first one is absurd, so let's go with the second.
The cause is not a living thing.
The cause is God or a living thing.In the end Stu, even with no experience in God, with no insight to know he exists, when faced with the other options, belief in a creator is not as silly as you think.
Let’s see that in slow-motion:
kind of silly
it seems a rather foolish thing
first one is absurd,
not as silly as you think.Is this some special theological argument for the deluded?
Stuart
Ah, I can see that you are resorting to making me look bad. That often happens when a person cannot win or wants to change the subject because he has no answers. You see this a lot in politics.
Your actions are text book stuff.
BTW, it is silly to believe that there is no God. That is the point I am making. I am not trying to hide this fact from anyone. It is written in the scriptures and I don't even need to believe that by faith because I can see how silly it is. I stand by my original post, but I think the reworded one is better and clearer.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
