|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who Made God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 279 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined:
|
Hi jar,
jar writes: Everything you post ICANT. Lets try this a little bit at the time like the cat ate the iron wedge. In my original post you replied too I said:
quote: What is specifically factually wrong with that statement? God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 279 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: |
Hi jar,
jar writes: Everything you post ICANT. Another statement from my post.
quote: If there is no scientific data prior to T=10-43 s, where would any scientist get data to make assumptions of what took place prior to T=10-43 s? What is factually wrong with my quoted statement? God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
As usual you are simply posting bullshit.
There is no way you or anyone else can factually say "Science has not and can not discover the origin of the universe." You then go on to show your ignorance by saying an irrelevant statement like "There is no scientific data until T=10-43 s. " when the factual statement would be "There is no scientific data until T=10-43 s at this time." Really, you need to stop saying stupid things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Since you do not refute any of my opinions I will assume that you are in agreement with each statement other than the time statement which I have corrected. That would be a pretty idiotic thing to assume. I don't have the inclination to debunk every silly thing I see on the internet. I plan to attempt even less of that this year than I have in the past. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined:
|
quote: I have known people that say they (or he/she/it) know what the Christian God taught, simply by the "Holy Spirit" talking to them, and they actually are fairly critical of the Bible, since it is simply a man-made work. There will be lots of reading of scientific works, then a complete rejection of the man-made system. I like the skepticism, but there tends to become a bit of a radical rejection of almost everything.
quote: It is what it is.
quote: But, where did "he" come from? He might have been something else on a universe where he arose. And the whole issue of an "eternal" something (whether God or Universe) is quite confusing. Roger Penrose (co-author of the famous Stephen Hawking book from the 1970s) says that our Universe is simply an ongoing recycling (naturally occurring) operation, with the previous one destroyed. He says the same thing will keep on happening. But, he says the (endlessly recycled) Universe is unlimited in age from both the future AND PAST directions. "Unlimited in both directions". Unlimited in the past! I simply can't grasp this "unlimited" concept. Remember how Fred Hoyle said that our Universe was of unlimited age with no beginning and no end? He even said that Hydrogen and Helium were always present. His Steady State theory, in hindsight, now looks like a straw man punching bag just waiting to be knocked to pieces BUT IT WAS A VIEW THAT HAD THE MOST POPULAR SUPPORT AMONG LAYPEOPLE. Additionally, similar (unlimited eternal Universe) views held a plurality among the scientific community until about 1949, then till 1965 it was about as strong among scientists as the Big Bang. The closest I can come to this "eternal God" or "eternal Universe" concept is if one the (very likely)considers total complete NOTHINGNESS stage to be part of the "age" (if one can even call it that) of what sprung up later (whether the Universe or God ).
quote: Plato is interesting, though he might have contributed to the near total complete destruction of ancient scientific works. Plato seems to have hated science (he might even have advocated book burning of scientific works, and that included the amazing Democritus of the Ionian Island Abdera) See this link for Sagan talking about these issues of ancient Ionian science, and scroll down to chapter 7.
quote: Plato was influential. Neo Platonism is considered a major strain of "Gnostic" theology (or Cosmology). He seems clearly to have influenced early Christians. The very LOGOS was not from his musings, but this Greek philosophical "thing" clearly captured the early Christian imagination. It is part of evangelical Christianity today, and the Gnostics weren't any less accepting of it, in fact far more so.
quote: The very existence of anything, is a miracle. God or no God, the fact that there is anything but an ABSOLUTE NOTHINGNESS is miraculous. Let us be very humble about the enormity of the very existence of anything period. Let us consider all conscious life an even greater miracle. Let us see every individual sentient creature to be both a miracle and something very short lived and precious (in every sense of the word). Biological life, especially to the point of existing, is a miracle (sort of) almost on par with the existence of any universe or space or element. The only thing making it less of a miracle is that it at least had the great advantage of being in a place where its very elements EXISTED at least, while the issue of space and matter existing AT ALL is (seemingly) simply impossible to understand (it seems just impossible for anything to logically exist at all, though we can comprehend NOTHING ever existing "everywhere"). The fact that we can't comprehend an eternally existing anything (any and all attempts to grasp such have failed totally and so much so that we take for granted the continual failure) should make us all very humble.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
Please explain your sentences.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 279 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: |
Hi LNA,
LNA writes: Please explain your sentences. Which ones? God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 279 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: |
Hi jar,
jar writes: "There is no scientific data until T=10-43 s at this time." But the theory of general relativity is what says there is no data prior to T=10-43 s, not me. jar don't you know how to copy and paste numbers that require special codes? Peek then copy and paste from there.
jar writes: Really, you need to stop saying stupid things. Maybe you are right jar. But until someone comes up with a theory to replace general relativity there will be no data prior to T=10-43 s. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
More stupid things. You really should try to stop posting stupid things.
Edited by jar, : fumbl fingrs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
ICANT SAID:
quote: Now, I have a revised "Answers Book" of AIG (from around 2000 and it had multiple authors credited as the main author) and I was about to type a half page or so into this thread. I was happy to see that the EXACT text I was about to type is online. It seems that Sarfati was the original author. It is interesting because it will show us that even AIG doesn't seem to see God as a supreme being in anything but our own universe. Pay close attention
quote: Notice this part. "Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in timeGod is ‘the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’ (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn’t have a cause." God is described as outside "time" as in the "space time" in our Universe. God could very well be limited in his creation. Only OUR universe could be his creation. Sarfati might not accept the Big Bang, but we know that roughly 34,999/35,000 of our Universe's 13.7 billion year age is observable through telescopes - all the way back to the young age of 380,000 years after the theorized Big Bang. Assuming the first 380,000 years (the only part of the 35,000 parts of roughly 400,000 years that cant be observed via telescopes) cranks back to a period of NO SPACE, then we have the period of the creation event, and the invention of time. Sarfati says that God always existed. But he sidesteps where God came from, and choose to only look at the space (time) creation in our Universe. He no doubt believes in an eternal God. Back to my earlier quote (I fixed the errors in the quote from my original post)
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
quote: Explain this please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18638 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.3 |
why are you accusing him of saying stupid things? That's a bit disingenuous. Perhaps you had better explain why his statements make no sense rather than seeing so arrogant. And didn't they tell you in school that there was no such thing as a stupid question?
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
And didn't they tell you in school that there was no such thing as a stupid question? Yes, I have heard that said. But that bromide turns out to be wrong. There are stupid questions. Many questions are not true requests for information but are instead thinly veiled attempts to state some position despite having a question mark at the end. The implied statements in those questions may well be stupid. Those are not the kinds of questions your school teacher was talking about, but they are the kind of questions ICANT asks very frequently. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
See above. It is not arrogance Phat but simply honesty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18638 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.3 |
I still don't understand how anyone can accept such a concept as a nothingness phase.
Is it not obvious that if at any given point there was nothing...then at any future point there simply must be nothing? Otherwise what you are implying is that something was created. Of course, if an unbeliever conceives of nothing (in the form of No God) and then later becomes a believer, the belief itself becomes the creation. Nothing becomes something. I reject this theory, however, because God is more than a subset of the human mind. Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024