- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 26 2008,14:24) Hi Stu,
There is less evidence that you exist.
Maybe if you live a fantasy in which reality and the fantasy world are swapped over, then perhaps I am part of your 'reality fantasy'.Stu
Hi Stu,
You are still enchanted by nature and limited by your natural perceptions.
There is more beyond you weak eyes.
the bible tells us“Looking at the intensity of this force in relation to the others, some physicists figure this force to be 10 to the 40 times that of gravity. If this force were 10 to the 41 times that of gravity, (gravity would be proportionally weaker) the stars would be smaller, and the pressure of gravity in their interiors would not drive the temperature high enough for nuclear fusion reactions to get under way. The sun would not shine. We could not exist here. If gravity were stronger proportionally so that the number was 10 to the 39, a star like the sun would find its life expectancy sharply reduced.”
[/QUOTE]And tell me what the difference between 10^39 and 10^41 is! Is it 2 times, or 100 times different?
–stu
Obviously, 10 squared, 10 to the power of 2, 100.
So that force is 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times that of gravity. (1040)
But if it were 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times that of gravity, the stars would not shine and we could not exist. (1041)Is this chance?
The only way it seems to me it could be chance, (along with all the other ratios and forces that also much be chance) is if it happened almost an infinity of times and we happened to be the lucky ones, where a universe did work, and got all the numbers right.Quote (david @ Jan. 27 2008,04:26) “Looking at the intensity of this force in relation to the others, some physicists figure this force to be 10 to the 40 times that of gravity. If this force were 10 to the 41 times that of gravity, (gravity would be proportionally weaker) the stars would be smaller, and the pressure of gravity in their interiors would not drive the temperature high enough for nuclear fusion reactions to get under way. The sun would not shine. We could not exist here. If gravity were stronger proportionally so that the number was 10 to the 39, a star like the sun would find its life expectancy sharply reduced.” [/QUOTE]And tell me what the difference between 10^39 and 10^41 is! Is it 2 times, or 100 times different?
–stu
Obviously, 10 squared, 10 to the power of 2, 100.
So that force is 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times that of gravity. (1040)
But if it were 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times that of gravity, the stars would not shine and we could not exist. (1041)Is this chance?
The only way it seems to me it could be chance, (along with all the other ratios and forces that also much be chance) is if it happened almost an infinity of times and we happened to be the lucky ones, where a universe did work, and got all the numbers right.
I think the whole argument is pretty naive anyway. Given the lack of a proper unification of gravity with quantum mechanics you really can't claim that there is something surprisingly well-organised about it. If matter is 'borrowed gravitational energy' that formed in an expansion of space time from a single point then you would expect there to be a 'return to single point' property of the matter / gravitational force system. That is exactly what matter is doing as stars form, and is almost the definition of a black hole.Stuart
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 26 2008,19:45) Hi Stu,
You are still enchanted by nature and limited by your natural perceptions.
There is more beyond you weak eyes.
the bible tells us
But you can't say what it is that is written in the bible. Is it reality or dreams of men? There is no way to tell, unless you have heard the voice of god personally. Have you?Stuart
Hi Stu,
God speaks through summer breezes and gentle ripples on a stream.
All His creation knows He lives
Except some men.Quote (acertainchap @ Jan. 26 2008,11:46) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 26 2008,00:51) Miracles are not there to prove God's existence, but to prove that God is with someone because of the miracles done through him.
I'm going to have to disagree, t8. Miracles are proof of God's existence and proof that He is with us.
Of course miracles are proof of God's existence, just as the universe proves God's existence. But God didn't create the universe to prove that he existed. He created it so that he could share his love with his creation.Similarly, God does miracles for reasons such as proving that the message and messengers are of him. Elijah, Moses, Yeshua, Paul, all had miracles proving their ministries.
When an average Joe Blogs sees a miracle in their life, it is not usually done to show that God exists, but it is because the person had faith to start with and it was by that faith that the miracle was able to happen.
Matthew 13:58
And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.So if miracles were there to prove that God existed, then would not those who had no faith be the most needy of a miracle? Yet Jesus couldn't do many because of their lack of faith.
Hey Stu which one is your gospel?
The Book of Stu.
Stu:1 (manuscript – stu1a)
1. In the beginning was nothing.
2. Nothing became something.
3. Something transformed itself into the current cosmos complete with beings that could know itself.
4. Something will eventually turn back into nothing.
5. But nothing could at some point become something again, and a new creation could result.Or
The Book of Stu.
Stu:1 (manuscript – stu1b)
1. In the beginning was something.
2. Something was inanimate but through trial and error it created a universe with laws.
3. It then even created life so that the universe could know itself.
4. This something existed for all eternity past and beyond.
5. It has always existed and it now shows itself as the cosmos.
6. Something transformed itself into the current cosmos complete with beings that could know itself.
7. It will all wrap up and perhaps in the future if all the numbers fall into place again, there will again exist some kind of order that can create and transform.Which one is it Stu?
Manuscript a or b?
Or is there another manuscript that explains the cosmos that doesn't involve choosing between nothing, something, someone.
Thanks for your time in clarifying your position.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 27 2008,13:32) Hi Stu,
God speaks through summer breezes and gentle ripples on a stream.
All His creation knows He lives
Except some men.
I hear the same sounds but do not interpret them as the communication of a omniscient being telling me to read a particular book. Your human senses are filtered through a brain that, in its attempt to discern useful things, imagines other things that aren't real. Through summer breezes and gentle ripples does your god tell you to execute homosexuals?Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Jan. 27 2008,16:02) Hey Stu which one is your gospel? The Book of Stu.
Stu:1 (manuscript – stu1a)
1. In the beginning was nothing.
2. Nothing became something.
3. Something transformed itself into the current cosmos complete with beings that could know itself.
4. Something will eventually turn back into nothing.
5. But nothing could at some point become something again, and a new creation could result.Or
The Book of Stu.
Stu:1 (manuscript – stu1b)
1. In the beginning was something.
2. Something was inanimate but through trial and error it created a universe with laws.
3. It then even created life so that the universe could know itself.
4. This something existed for all eternity past and beyond.
5. It has always existed and it now shows itself as the cosmos.
6. Something transformed itself into the current cosmos complete with beings that could know itself.
7. It will all wrap up and perhaps in the future if all the numbers fall into place again, there will again exist some kind of order that can create and transform.Which one is it Stu?
Manuscript a or b?
Or is there another manuscript that explains the cosmos that doesn't involve choosing between nothing, something, someone.
Thanks for your time in clarifying your position.
You're doing the talking. I'm still waiting for the theory of the divine being that invents itself first.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 27 2008,16:24) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 27 2008,13:32) Hi Stu,
God speaks through summer breezes and gentle ripples on a stream.
All His creation knows He lives
Except some men.
I hear the same sounds but do not interpret them as the communication of a omniscient being telling me to read a particular book. Your human senses are filtered through a brain that, in its attempt to discern useful things, imagines other things that aren't real. Through summer breezes and gentle ripples does your god tell you to execute homosexuals?Stuart
Hi Stu,You are the odd one out here if you are unaware of the presence of God among us.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 27 2008,16:29) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 27 2008,16:24) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 27 2008,13:32) Hi Stu,
God speaks through summer breezes and gentle ripples on a stream.
All His creation knows He lives
Except some men.
I hear the same sounds but do not interpret them as the communication of a omniscient being telling me to read a particular book. Your human senses are filtered through a brain that, in its attempt to discern useful things, imagines other things that aren't real. Through summer breezes and gentle ripples does your god tell you to execute homosexuals?Stuart
Hi Stu,You are the odd one out here if you are unaware of the presence of God among us.
In the 2001 NZ census 59% self-identified as christian. By last year the figure had dropped to 51%. At that rate, by now christians will no longer be a clear majority. There is a significant age-trend here, the mainstream churches are full of the older age group – christianity in this country is literally dying. Adding the ones who have belief in the same god, subtracting the cultural christians who do not believe in god and ignoring those who believe in a different kind of god, it would seem that you are out of step with the realisations of the rest of the population.Stuart
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 27 2008,16:59) Hi Stu,
Did you think God kept more than a remnant?
If your version of this faith is so elitist I wonder what care you have for the supposed message of Jesus. Are the calvanists right?Stuart
Hi Stu,
The road is narrow and few choose it
but mercy triumphs over judgement
And the merciful find mercy too.Quote (Stu @ Jan. 27 2008,16:26) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 27 2008,16:02) Hey Stu which one is your gospel? The Book of Stu.
Stu:1 (manuscript – stu1a)
1. In the beginning was nothing.
2. Nothing became something.
3. Something transformed itself into the current cosmos complete with beings that could know itself.
4. Something will eventually turn back into nothing.
5. But nothing could at some point become something again, and a new creation could result.Or
The Book of Stu.
Stu:1 (manuscript – stu1b)
1. In the beginning was something.
2. Something was inanimate but through trial and error it created a universe with laws.
3. It then even created life so that the universe could know itself.
4. This something existed for all eternity past and beyond.
5. It has always existed and it now shows itself as the cosmos.
6. Something transformed itself into the current cosmos complete with beings that could know itself.
7. It will all wrap up and perhaps in the future if all the numbers fall into place again, there will again exist some kind of order that can create and transform.Which one is it Stu?
Manuscript a or b?
Or is there another manuscript that explains the cosmos that doesn't involve choosing between nothing, something, someone.
Thanks for your time in clarifying your position.
You're doing the talking. I'm still waiting for the theory of the divine being that invents itself first.Stuart
First things first Stu.I want to establish that you are writing off one of the possible answers by reason of your bias alone.
If you do not know the answer then you cannot write off that there is a creator.
I will not move from this point until you acknowledge it.
People are fond of ignoring that which challenges them. Such people are not really interested in the truth and therefore to go into specifics is a complete waste of time until such a person acknowledges his stance or admits that he doesn't know.
I await your answer before progressing.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 28 2008,06:22) Hi Stu,
Which lie has been told, can you be specific?
Sorry, not sure to what you are referring. Many lies have been told, it would help to narrow it down a bit!Stuart
Hi t8
Quote I want to establish that you are writing off one of the possible answers by reason of your bias Hi alone. If you do not know the answer then you cannot write off that there is a creator.
Either you can’t, or won’t read. I have given my answer to this time and again. I do not discount the existence of a creator on scientific grounds as science cannot disprove a negative. In the same way you cannot prove that Zeus is not the creator. All models have a probability attached, and your model has such a low probability, given all that it cannot explain, that I discount it as a waste of time, except when it helps to understand the motives of fundamentalists, which seems to be an increasingly important thing to do due to the dangerous games some of them play in their pig-headed blindness and lack of love for their fellow humans.Quote I will not move from this point until you acknowledge it.
Well you do seem to get stuck retelling the same discredited arguments over and over.Quote People are fond of ignoring that which challenges them. Such people are not really interested in the truth and therefore to go into specifics is a complete waste of time until such a person acknowledges his stance or admits that he doesn't know. I await your answer before progressing.
You know, I really don’t think it is I who am fixed in my views, or incapable of progressing. Why don’t you go back and read my posts on this issue before you start on a whole new orbit round the same, already exhaustively discussed ideas. Your response is very similar to the creationist who has a go at ‘debating’ a biologist in front of an audience. You like to think you can produce arguments that cut at the heart of the ‘evil’ of everything that does not agree with your worldview, but actually you just end up hiding behind special philosophical pleadings that have only limited value instead of going red in the face at the embarrassment of sticking doggedly to the naïve and allegorical accounts of ancient middle-eastern goat herders and tent-makers that you find you must take literally, in the face of the obvious realities of the world around us.Before we 'progress', I just need you to acknowledge that there is a possibility that there is no supernatural being of any kind.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
