- This topic is empty.
- Posts
stu,
a rock and an orangutan?
man can't have a relationship with a rock but with a thinking and a feeling orangutan ( a creation of GOD) man can establish a relationship.
if man can relate to a fellow creation, how much more with his CREATOR.
journey
Quote (charity @ Nov. 15 2007,21:52) 
yes thinking about it more, it would be too much of God to ask a man to sit and hatch an egg?
I think male penguins do.I saw it on “Surf's Up” (an animated movie).
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 16 2007,09:14) Quote (charity @ Nov. 15 2007,21:52) yes thinking about it more, it would be too much of God to ask a man to sit and hatch an egg?
I think male penguins do.I saw it on “Surf's Up” (an animated movie).
LOL..i NEEDED THAT T8…THANKS
WELL EVE WAS STILL Adam, when God brought the animals in to be named, that could explan it? Quote (t8 @ Nov. 16 2007,09:35) Yeah I like that line “be a man, sit on an egg”.
yer I loved that line, and….You know it!
Everybody says. Cody’s this Cody’s that!
That’s the second time you’ve been unconscious this week
Keep your girl friend out of this!
Hi Morningstar
Quote good point Stu. Truly without God (higher power a true source of somekind) then there really is not “meaning of life”. Are you telling me my life has no meaning? Can you hear me laughing from where you are?
Quote The only meaning life would have is what each one of us decides to give it. Yes, absolutely. This is evidently true the world over.
Quote In all honesty without some purpose we really are alone here just trying to experience our “one pass” through life in the most pleasent way we can. Pleasant is one word you could use. Bringing joy to others, trying to work out what makes our fellow humans tick, exploring the universe and the astonishing event of our existence as humans, are some other things that give meaning. I’m sure you could list many more without having to resort to supernatural beings. The reality for many people in the third world is that the hard grind of daily survival precludes such aspirations. If your god is in charge, then he really is a callous and indiscriminate dictator, don't you think?
Quote Ethics and morality are purely evolved emotions that have helped us to continue to procreate and thus increase our survival odds. Yes. You could call them behaviours, or extended phenotypes too.
Quote With this in view, if there really was no meaning to life. Then I could honestly rape, murderer and steal all I wanted to. Possibly. But you have just spoiled your argument, because atheists who live under the assumption that there is no such Imaginary Sky Friend do not go out and commit such crimes to any greater extent. In my experience the public figures most likely to be arrested are the ones loudly preaching righteousness. You could probably give me five such names off the top of your head right now.
Quote The only consequences to these things would be if I got caught or if I suffered from guilt caused by evolved emotions. Do you dismiss the power of guilt? The Catholic church doesn’t. It is a shame if you really believe that he only thing stopping you from abusing others is your supernatural beliefs. Would you agree with one prominent christian leader who suggested that christians are in more need of salvation than non-believers? Is the god gene linked to antisocial behaviour?
Quote There would be no difference between a cat torturing a poor cricket and a pedophile having his way with a child. Are you saying atheists generally agree with the behaviour of paedophiles? Do you have some evidence to back up that claim? What ethical principles do you think guide the lives of those who do not share your beliefs?
Quote even if I was wrong, I would rather be an animal that dreams he has a higher purpose than an animal that has no purpose. I agree, but why do you need a god to aspire to great meaning for your life?
Stuart
Quote (journey @ Nov. 16 2007,02:54) stu, a rock and an orangutan?
man can't have a relationship with a rock but with a thinking and a feeling orangutan ( a creation of GOD) man can establish a relationship.
if man can relate to a fellow creation, how much more with his CREATOR.
journey
The point of the rock is that we know exactly why there are rocks, from a few microseconds after the big bang onwards. We also know why there is the matter that makes up our bodies (and those of our man-of-the-forest cousins the orangutans), and how that came to be organised in the way it is. We know that we can give a rock a purpose or a design (say by carving) that it would not otherwise have. But we were not designed, the carver of us is natural selection, so we have to give our own lives meaning. No matter how you put it, you would have to conclude that all humans the world over take responsibility for giving meaning to their own lives, to a greater or lesser extent.Stuart
using SCIENCE AND your theory stuart..Rocks to be shaken from heaven ..DNA
How long do you think this would take?
Mat 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
just so sience dosn't get to far behind by not listening?
Rev 8:13 And I beheld, and heard an angel flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three angels, which are yet to sound!
Rev 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.
CHARITY
Quote (charity @ Nov. 19 2007,06:53) using SCIENCE AND your theory stuart..Rocks to be shaken from heaven ..DNA How long do you think this would take?
Mat 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
just so sience dosn't get to far behind by not listening?
Rev 8:13 And I beheld, and heard an angel flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three angels, which are yet to sound!
Rev 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.
CHARITY
Hi Charity“The stars shall fall from heaven”
How will this work?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 25 2007,17:12) Quote (charity @ Nov. 19 2007,06:53) using SCIENCE AND your theory stuart..Rocks to be shaken from heaven ..DNA How long do you think this would take?
Mat 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
just so sience dosn't get to far behind by not listening?
Rev 8:13 And I beheld, and heard an angel flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three angels, which are yet to sound!
Rev 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.
CHARITY
Hi Charity“The stars shall fall from heaven”
How will this work?
Stuart
Hi Stuart, To ANSWERE this is, way, way, bigger than disciple Johns solution WISH IT WAS LIKE MIXING SPIT AND CLAY AND TELLING SOMEONE TO PUT ON THEIR EYES…eek…
Creation starts with the Torah,
Men drag blood lines along the earth, earthly.
God is rewiring, an end to blood lines that he alone ordained and created before he put any soul in a womb.Quote (charity @ Nov. 26 2007,10:51) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 25 2007,17:12) Quote (charity @ Nov. 19 2007,06:53) using SCIENCE AND your theory stuart..Rocks to be shaken from heaven ..DNA How long do you think this would take?
Mat 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
just so sience dosn't get to far behind by not listening?
Rev 8:13 And I beheld, and heard an angel flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three angels, which are yet to sound!
Rev 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.
CHARITY
Hi Charity“The stars shall fall from heaven”
How will this work?
Stuart
Hi Stuart, To ANSWERE this is, way, way, bigger than disciple Johns solution WISH IT WAS LIKE MIXING SPIT AND CLAY AND TELLING SOMEONE TO PUT ON THEIR EYES…eek…
Creation starts with the Torah,
Men drag blood lines along the earth, earthly.
God is rewiring, an end to blood lines that he alone ordained and created before he put any soul in a womb.
So are you happy for me to describe Revelation as a dangerous fantasy that too many people in the world are taking literally?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 26 2007,18:45) Quote (charity @ Nov. 26 2007,10:51) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 25 2007,17:12) Quote (charity @ Nov. 19 2007,06:53) using SCIENCE AND your theory stuart..Rocks to be shaken from heaven ..DNA How long do you think this would take?
Mat 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
just so sience dosn't get to far behind by not listening?
Rev 8:13 And I beheld, and heard an angel flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three angels, which are yet to sound!
Rev 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.
CHARITY
Hi Charity“The stars shall fall from heaven”
How will this work?
Stuart
Hi Stuart, To ANSWERE this is, way, way, bigger than disciple Johns solution WISH IT WAS LIKE MIXING SPIT AND CLAY AND TELLING SOMEONE TO PUT ON THEIR EYES…eek…
Creation starts with the Torah,
Men drag blood lines along the earth, earthly.
God is rewiring, an end to blood lines that he alone ordained and created before he put any soul in a womb.
So are you happy for me to describe Revelation as a dangerous fantasy that too many people in the world are taking literally?Stuart
Yes stuart I can meet you there; I have heard some peeps and mutters, making all new things up, without any account or respect of the first father’s reports, (Torah)
Not everyone is an interrupter of scriptures, actually the best report I can offer is the mouth of the prophet himself should be the one to interrupt his own vision and stand in the endE.g. The book of Revelations, covers many a repeat from the book of Daniel, and others
And here Daniels instruction, that will finished with the effect of vision, when he stands on earth again. This is his honour solely, promised and sealed.
Dan 12:13
But go thou thy way till the end [be]: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.
Hbr 7:3
Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.It’s up to you, if you wish to except and entertain these possibilities, then so be done
Thanks stuartQuote (TimothyVI @ Nov. 15 2007,22:55) I don't know which came first, the chicken or the egg.
But the chicken had to come before the Kentucky Colonel.Sorry,:p
Tim
Maybe both the chicken and egg came first. ^^A man was to live in that egg-shell day and night, a mile from the shore…. Think of making your bed thus in the crest of a breaker! To have the waves, like a pack of hungry wolves, eying you always, night and day, and from time to time making a spring at you, almost sure to have you at last.
Quote attributed to Henry David ThoreauNo David would not want a Man to sit on his throne that could not hatch a kingdom come.
charity
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 16 2007,17:43) Hi Morningstar Quote good point Stu. Truly without God (higher power a true source of somekind) then there really is not “meaning of life”. Are you telling me my life has no meaning? Can you hear me laughing from where you are?
Quote The only meaning life would have is what each one of us decides to give it. Yes, absolutely. This is evidently true the world over.
Quote In all honesty without some purpose we really are alone here just trying to experience our “one pass” through life in the most pleasent way we can. Pleasant is one word you could use. Bringing joy to others, trying to work out what makes our fellow humans tick, exploring the universe and the astonishing event of our existence as humans, are some other things that give meaning. I’m sure you could list many more without having to resort to supernatural beings. The reality for many people in the third world is that the hard grind of daily survival precludes such aspirations. If your god is in charge, then he really is a callous and indiscriminate dictator, don't you think?
Quote Ethics and morality are purely evolved emotions that have helped us to continue to procreate and thus increase our survival odds. Yes. You could call them behaviours, or extended phenotypes too.
Quote With this in view, if there really was no meaning to life. Then I could honestly rape, murderer and steal all I wanted to. Possibly. But you have just spoiled your argument, because atheists who live under the assumption that there is no such Imaginary Sky Friend do not go out and commit such crimes to any greater extent. In my experience the public figures most likely to be arrested are the ones loudly preaching righteousness. You could probably give me five such names off the top of your head right now.
Quote The only consequences to these things would be if I got caught or if I suffered from guilt caused by evolved emotions. Do you dismiss the power of guilt? The Catholic church doesn’t. It is a shame if you really believe that he only thing stopping you from abusing others is your supernatural beliefs. Would you agree with one prominent christian leader who suggested that christians are in more need of salvation than non-believers? Is the god gene linked to antisocial behaviour?
Quote There would be no difference between a cat torturing a poor cricket and a pedophile having his way with a child. Are you saying atheists generally agree with the behaviour of paedophiles? Do you have some evidence to back up that claim? What ethical principles do you think guide the lives of those who do not share your beliefs?
Quote even if I was wrong, I would rather be an animal that dreams he has a higher purpose than an animal that has no purpose. I agree, but why do you need a god to aspire to great meaning for your life?
Stuart
Stu,I think you know what I meant here. I actually did not mean this as an attack on athiests or their ethics.
I was just stating the truth about how in an athiestic world view, ethics, justice and morality are just inventions of men independent of any higher standard. They could even be said to be geographical and based on majority.
You are a very intelligent person. I can see by your train of thought that we think in simular patterns.
In the end though, the arguement t8 makes sways me dramatically towards deism. History, the bible and personal experience sway me even farther into theism. Theism then sways me towards Christ.
Here is t8's arguement that I just can't ignore:
Think of nothing. Then think of everything.
How did nothing become something and then everything.
Yes you can explain processes but it doesn't explain away the one who made the processes.If you deny a creator then I have to agree with scripture.
“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”
I have meditated on this concept through out my life and without “God” (not necessarily a defined God just the concept for starters) my mind cannot comprehend it.
The First Cause arguement is very powerful to me as well.
Hi Morningstar
Quote I was just stating the truth about how in an athiestic world view, ethics, justice and morality are just inventions of men independent of any higher standard. They could even be said to be geographical and based on majority.
To a certain extent this is right. I think many laws are written-down versions of ‘rules’ that have come from an evolutionary process, partly hard-wired and partly carried through cultural traditions. Versions of some of what you call the ten commandments have been around since well before the supposed time of Moses.Quote In the end though, the arguement t8 makes sways me dramatically towards deism. History, the bible and personal experience sway me even farther into theism. Theism then sways me towards Christ.
Here is t8's arguement that I just can't ignore:
Think of nothing. Then think of everything.
How did nothing become something and then everything.
Yes you can explain processes but it doesn't explain away the one who made the processes.
If you deny a creator then I have to agree with scripture.
“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”
I have meditated on this concept through out my life and without “God” (not necessarily a defined God just the concept for starters) my mind cannot comprehend it.
The First Cause arguement is very powerful to me as well.The great problem with t8’s argument is that he claims that something cannot come from nothing. First you should be wary of the word ‘cannot’. We do observe tiny examples of the quantum world of matter coming into and going out of existence all the time. The smallest particles that make up your body pop into and out of existence constantly. It is just fortunate that they do not all do that at the same time. How it happened on a grand scale is a bit more of a challenge, but it is a young science and discovery is happening very rapidly.
t8 says that complex things must be designed, presumably by a complex creator. Firstly he is simply wrong, evolution is a fact and natural selection a well-established theory to explain the appearance of complexity in living things. Other examples, like crystals forming from a salt solution show localised ordering at the expense of disorder elsewhere. Not knowing exactly how life started is not the same as saying it is not possible chemically – it certainly is. Secondly there is no answer to ‘how’ the creator brought matter into being, there is no why (science doesn’t care, but christianity does, yet there still is no reason why, even for the religious!), and there is no explanation for where the complexity came from originally. There is no explanation if you don’t explain what created the creator. This alone should be enough to have you questioning everything and certainly I have never seen an answer to that question, because I suspect there isn’t one.
Your quote of t8 above should only be enough to lead you as far as deism. ‘Why is there something not nothing’ is very pared-back deism. I can’t see how you can even get as far as theism on what t8 writes. The same goes for David’s writing on science questions.
‘My mind cannot comprehend it’ is perfectly understandable. It does not succeed though in dismissing those who do comprehend it very well, without need for the supernatural. Just because we don’t understand it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. In this way I leave open the possibility that t8 is right. I do have to also accept all other creation myths on the same basis, and all of them I reckon to be very unlikely, to put it mildly. I think you should ask t8 whether he concedes that he could be wrong. If he doesn't, then his arguments do not have the respectability that science brings, he is spouting dogma.
As for ‘the fool says…’ don’t you agree that insults, even divinely inspired ones, are not worthy material for a serious discussion. Might you wonder whether t8 has read the rules of this forum?!
Food for thought?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 04 2007,20:35) Hi Morningstar Quote I was just stating the truth about how in an athiestic world view, ethics, justice and morality are just inventions of men independent of any higher standard. They could even be said to be geographical and based on majority.
To a certain extent this is right. I think many laws are written-down versions of ‘rules’ that have come from an evolutionary process, partly hard-wired and partly carried through cultural traditions. Versions of some of what you call the ten commandments have been around since well before the supposed time of Moses.Quote In the end though, the arguement t8 makes sways me dramatically towards deism. History, the bible and personal experience sway me even farther into theism. Theism then sways me towards Christ.
Here is t8's arguement that I just can't ignore:
Think of nothing. Then think of everything.
How did nothing become something and then everything.
Yes you can explain processes but it doesn't explain away the one who made the processes.
If you deny a creator then I have to agree with scripture.
“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”
I have meditated on this concept through out my life and without “God” (not necessarily a defined God just the concept for starters) my mind cannot comprehend it.
The First Cause arguement is very powerful to me as well.The great problem with t8’s argument is that he claims that something cannot come from nothing. First you should be wary of the word ‘cannot’. We do observe tiny examples of the quantum world of matter coming into and going out of existence all the time. The smallest particles that make up your body pop into and out of existence constantly. It is just fortunate that they do not all do that at the same time. How it happened on a grand scale is a bit more of a challenge, but it is a young science and discovery is happening very rapidly.
t8 says that complex things must be designed, presumably by a complex creator. Firstly he is simply wrong, evolution is a fact and natural selection a well-established theory to explain the appearance of complexity in living things. Other examples, like crystals forming from a salt solution show localised ordering at the expense of disorder elsewhere. Not knowing exactly how life started is not the same as saying it is not possible chemically – it certainly is. Secondly there is no answer to ‘how’ the creator brought matter into being, there is no why (science doesn’t care, but christianity does, yet there still is no reason why, even for the religious!), and there is no explanation for where the complexity came from originally. There is no explanation if you don’t explain what created the creator. This alone should be enough to have you questioning everything and certainly I have never seen an answer to that question, because I suspect there isn’t one.
Your quote of t8 above should only be enough to lead you as far as deism. ‘Why is there something not nothing’ is very pared-back deism. I can’t see how you can even get as far as theism on what t8 writes. The same goes for David’s writing on science questions.
‘My mind cannot comprehend it’ is perfectly understandable. It does not succeed though in dismissing those who do comprehend it very well, without need for the supernatural. Just because we don’t understand it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. In this way I leave open the possibility that t8 is right. I do have to also accept all other creation myths on the same basis, and all of them I reckon to be very unlikely, to put it mildly. I think you should ask t8 whether he concedes that he could be wrong. If he doesn't, then his arguments do not have the respectability that science brings, he is spouting dogma.
As for ‘the fool says…’ don’t you agree that insults, even divinely inspired ones, are not worthy material for a serious discussion. Might you wonder whether t8 has read the rules of this forum?!
Food for thought?
Stuart
To be clear t8s arguements or writings did not bring me to my current beliefs, I had them before I came here. I happen to share them with him, however. And I have learned from him concerning scripture, but he has not influenced my view of cosmology at all.t8s arguement does not bring me to theism either. Like I said history, the bible and personal experience lead me in that direction.
I know beyond doubt there is a God it is only a matter of defining him / her / it. Regardless of whether God is a bearded man sitting on a throne in heaven or a quantim hiccup that manifests itself in a singularity that produces a big bang, God does exist.
For me God is the irreducible first cause of all things.
How many First Causes can there be?
ONE! A First Cause must have existed eternally because a first cause cannot have a cause. If one argues that there is a never ending succession of causes then I would bring up a new arguement. If our history is filled with an infinite amount of time then we would never have reached today. There has to be a beginning.
What is the nature of the First Cause? Material or beyond material?
Matter is not eternal so the first cause must be beyond material. Inventing and defining the term spiritual.
Is the First Cause sentient or just a force?
The First Cause is the cause of all things and therefore must contain the needed information, potiential and capacity for all things within itself. I am sentient so therefore the First Cause contains that information, potential and capacity. The universe from it's earliest moments (according to science) started operating with laws and functions and set in motion a series of events that to me sounds like a grand symphony of creation. The First Cause then is sentient.
I don't believe anyone on this planet truly comprehends the idea of everything popping into existence by itself out of nothing. Those who claim that are completely dishonest in my opinion.
As for quoting a bible verse in this forum “the fool says…” I think that would probably be allowed on a bible believing forum. Touching as to whether I personally find it worthy material for a serious discussion then I would say that I agree with it. I am not talking about agnostics like you Stu, rather those who claim that they are true and absolutely convinced athiest. I would have to say that it rather foolish.
Hi Morningstar
Quote I know beyond doubt there is a God it is only a matter of defining him / her / it. Regardless of whether God is a bearded man sitting on a throne in heaven or a quantim hiccup that manifests itself in a singularity that produces a big bang, God does exist. For me God is the irreducible first cause of all things. How many First Causes can there be? ONE! A First Cause must have existed eternally because a first cause cannot have a cause. If one argues that there is a never ending succession of causes then I would bring up a new arguement. If our history is filled with an infinite amount of time then we would never have reached today. There has to be a beginning. Your quantum hiccup god is a god of the gaps, always a difficult idea because such gods are liable to disappear in a puff of scientific discovery. Once you have explained the quantum effect (there are some pretty good explanations already), where does such a god run? The originator of irreducible things is also a god of the gaps of the same kind. You are the first person here that I have seen reply to the paradox of the recurring complexity of the creators. You do so with an apparent paradox of your own! I think there had to be a beginning too, a beginning of time.
A first cause of the universe is not science because there is no prediction, no falsifiability and no evidence that is not also supportive of other models. If you want a philosophical firer of the starter’s gun then you can have your deism if you want. It really makes no difference to the outcome if such a thing started it all off and has done nothing since, except that the thing itself remains unexplained and there is no specific reason to posit it apart from human egocentrism. Why have a natural explanation all the way back to a few microseconds after the big bang, then suddenly go supernatural? ‘Natural’ is difficult enough of a concept without the brick wall of incomprehension that an irrelevant deity would bring.Quote What is the nature of the First Cause? Material or beyond material? Matter is not eternal so the first cause must be beyond material. Inventing and defining the term spiritual. The definition of ‘material’ is the question to answer before defining spiritual. I think your first cause is imaginary, at best philosophical, your definition of matter too black-and-white (where is E=mc2, for example), and the word spiritual without meaning at all.
Quote Is the First Cause sentient or just a force?
Of course this is the real question that others here have.Quote The First Cause is the cause of all things and therefore must contain the needed information, potiential and capacity for all things within itself. I am sentient so therefore the First Cause contains that information, potential and capacity. The universe from it's earliest moments (according to science) started operating with laws and functions and set in motion a series of events that to me sounds like a grand symphony of creation. The First Cause then is sentient. The sum total of your experience of life says there is a sentient initiator, and the sum total of my experience tells me there is no need for one to explain anything, and there is no evidence for one either. While quantum mechanics does a hatchet job on the quantum god, it is Darwin himself that disposes of this argument, and I feel a bit stupid not to have seen it from this point of view before. You are quite right that deism could require a priming of everything but the coding for the kind of sentience we have (which is presumably the same as god’s as we are allegedly made in his image) is missing in bacteria, especially the primordial kind that we know from fossils and that are still represented today in modern species. There is no reasonable hope that any bit of bacterial DNA ancient or modern could lead to sentience in any descendent. That elusive ability has evolved long after the supposed initial priming.
Quote I don't believe anyone on this planet truly comprehends the idea of everything popping into existence by itself out of nothing. Those who claim that are completely dishonest in my opinion.
Well you do strike a bit of a problem here. From what material did the creator make everything? Is the biblical account dishonest too?Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
It does not say there was something beforehand here. I’m not sure where you stand on deuterocanonical writing but 2 Macabees 7:28 is pretty clear: Son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing.
I may disagree with you but I do appreciate the writing of someone who has really given the subject some thought!
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 07 2007,16:56) Hi Morningstar Quote I know beyond doubt there is a God it is only a matter of defining him / her / it. Regardless of whether God is a bearded man sitting on a throne in heaven or a quantim hiccup that manifests itself in a singularity that produces a big bang, God does exist. For me God is the irreducible first cause of all things. How many First Causes can there be? ONE! A First Cause must have existed eternally because a first cause cannot have a cause. If one argues that there is a never ending succession of causes then I would bring up a new arguement. If our history is filled with an infinite amount of time then we would never have reached today. There has to be a beginning. Your quantum hiccup god is a god of the gaps, always a difficult idea because such gods are liable to disappear in a puff of scientific discovery. Once you have explained the quantum effect (there are some pretty good explanations already), where does such a god run? The originator of irreducible things is also a god of the gaps of the same kind. You are the first person here that I have seen reply to the paradox of the recurring complexity of the creators. You do so with an apparent paradox of your own! I think there had to be a beginning too, a beginning of time.
A first cause of the universe is not science because there is no prediction, no falsifiability and no evidence that is not also supportive of other models. If you want a philosophical firer of the starter’s gun then you can have your deism if you want. It really makes no difference to the outcome if such a thing started it all off and has done nothing since, except that the thing itself remains unexplained and there is no specific reason to posit it apart from human egocentrism. Why have a natural explanation all the way back to a few microseconds after the big bang, then suddenly go supernatural? ‘Natural’ is difficult enough of a concept without the brick wall of incomprehension that an irrelevant deity would bring.Quote What is the nature of the First Cause? Material or beyond material? Matter is not eternal so the first cause must be beyond material. Inventing and defining the term spiritual. The definition of ‘material’ is the question to answer before defining spiritual. I think your first cause is imaginary, at best philosophical, your definition of matter too black-and-white (where is E=mc2, for example), and the word spiritual without meaning at all.
Quote Is the First Cause sentient or just a force?
Of course this is the real question that others here have.Quote The First Cause is the cause of all things and therefore must contain the needed information, potiential and capacity for all things within itself. I am sentient so therefore the First Cause contains that information, potential and capacity. The universe from it's earliest moments (according to science) started operating with laws and functions and set in motion a series of events that to me sounds like a grand symphony of creation. The First Cause then is sentient. The sum total of your experience of life says there is a sentient initiator, and the sum total of my experience tells me there is no need for one to explain anything, and there is no evidence for one either. While quantum mechanics does a hatchet job on the quantum god, it is Darwin himself that disposes of this argument, and I feel a bit stupid not to have seen it from this point of view before. You are quite right that deism could require a priming of everything but the coding for the kind of sentience we have (which is presumably the same as god’s as we are allegedly made in his image) is missing in bacteria, especially the primordial kind that we know from fossils and that are still represented today in modern species. There is no reasonable hope that any bit of bacterial DNA ancient or modern could lead to sentience in any descendent. That elusive ability has evolved long after the supposed initial priming.
Quote I don't believe anyone on this planet truly comprehends the idea of everything popping into existence by itself out of nothing. Those who claim that are completely dishonest in my opinion.
Well you do strike a bit of a problem here. From what material did the creator make everything? Is the biblical account dishonest too?Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
It does not say there was something beforehand here. I’m not sure where you stand on deuterocanonical writing but 2 Macabees 7:28 is pretty clear: Son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing.
I may disagree with you but I do appreciate the writing of someone who has really given the subject some thought!
Stuart
for the record I acknowledge this as science and “my” philosophy.but what else can “I” reason but what “I” know.
It's my only source of information apart from divine revelation. Which I personally have not had in a manner that would be convincing to you.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
