Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,918 Year: 4,175/9,624 Month: 1,046/974 Week: 5/368 Day: 5/11 Hour: 0/2


EvC Forum ⇒ Social and Religious Issues ⇒ Faith and Belief ⇒

GOD IS DEAD

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   GOD IS DEAD
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2326 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008

Normal Thread Display
Message 102 of 304 (483346)
09-21-2008 5:50 PM 		Reply to: Message 101 by mike the wiz
09-21-2008 5:28 PM

Re: Composition makes this futile
Mike writes:
​
1. People have died for God. People haven't for Zigzog.
2. People believe in God. People don't believe in Zigzog.
3. God is historically prevailent. Zigzog is not.
4. It is unknown as to whether God is an idea. It is known that Zigzog is.
You're quite right about this Zigzog fellow, however I'd like you to meet the one true bringer of truth, his name is Trask:
1. Everybody that ever lived died for Trask, even if they don't know it.
2. I believe in Trask
3. Trask is historically prevailent, he just tricked you into thinkng he's not
4. Trask is not an idea, he's real, and he speaks to me. He told me to post this so you could be enlightened
​
Furthermore I would like to state that Trask likes to prank people, he does it all the time.
​
You see Mike, how do you refute that. Sure you can say it's not true and I am lying, and then I can come back and say I'm not. The point I'm trying to make is that simply claiming something to be true does not make it so, so unless you can come up with anything else then bare assertions, I'll just keep claiming the same, and more, for Trask and we'll never get anywhere.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by mike the wiz, posted 09-21-2008 5:28 PM mike the wiz has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by mike the wiz, posted 09-21-2008 6:26 PM Huntard has not replied
 Message 105 by Straggler, posted 09-21-2008 6:42 PM Huntard has not replied
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2326 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008

Normal Thread Display
Message 211 of 304 (484865)
10-02-2008 11:45 AM 		Reply to: Message 208 by Dawn Bertot
10-02-2008 11:13 AM

Re: Comments before heading to Egypt
Bertot writes:
​
This is my whole point Ned, your taking a Term, "No boundary" and making it mean whatever you wish. If there is no boundary to the surface of the earth as to be distinguished form the space that immediatley proceed it, then terms, ideas and concepts have on meaning at all. Chaniging meanings of words doesnt work either.
​
No boundary in the context of space could only mean limitless in any direction, correct?
Ned is not making up definitions here, he , in fact, explained it perfectly.Space has no boundaries, yet it is not infinite.
​
Here's a little example that might help you understand:
​
If you take of from the earth in a space ship, and keep going in one direction long enough, you will eventually come back to the earth. You did not deviate from your path, you also didn't encounter any boundary, yet, you are still back where you started.
​
Thus:
​
Space: Unbounded but finite!
​
As for the
If there is no boundary to the surface of the earth as to be distinguished form the space that immediately proceed it, then terms, ideas and concepts have on meaning at all.
bit, I don't really understand what you're saying here, could you elaborate?
​
I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-02-2008 11:13 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2326 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008

Normal Thread Display
Message 217 of 304 (484909)
10-03-2008 1:55 AM 		Reply to: Message 215 by Dawn Bertot
10-03-2008 1:14 AM

Re: Comments before heading to Egypt
Bertot writes:
​
A inch higher than mount Eversest or just bend your knees and jump. How about going straight through the earth to the other side, then a couple of miles in space. No boundary?
You can't do that when you're limited to 2d movement Bertot. We can do that because we are NOT limited to 2d, we're limited to 3d movement. And so for us, 4d space-time, has no boundaries, because we are limited to 3d movement.
​
If space is anything close to the earth, there is probably something on the other side of space. If indeed space is finite there would of necessity have to be.
This might very well be the case, however, we have NO way of crossing this boundary because, again, to us, space has no boundary.
​
The argument is not whether the universe is like a big circular argument but did it start at some point.
I don't see how this comment you reacted to is a circular argument, nor does it having a boundary have anything to do with when it started.
​
No I understand its principle, but besides being speculative as the above statements indicate, it falls short to expalin anything utimately. Like the examples you provide, they themelves invole the principle of contengency, no matter how we can imagine or percieve thier pos------------------------ibilites. Besides all of this me and my brother spent many ours in 7-11 playing that very game. The real problem was that darn ship that came out of nowhere and caused panic and terror in me. Missle Command, now that was a game. If you had either one of these original games, you would have acouple of vluable items
What does ANY of that have to do with an unbounded Universe? Furthermore, as demonstrated by your comments above, I don't think you DO understand the principle.
​
What do you think will be next, after the "steady state theory" and now the No boundary Purposal". Do you think an eternal God will be a solution to the problem for science at some point. I understand the problem with the eternality, no beginning or end of a Being such as God. I have wrestled with it all of my theological life. There are simply no other solutions that I can fathom or find.
I don't think God's EVER been a problem to science.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-03-2008 1:14 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-03-2008 2:47 AM Huntard has replied
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2326 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008

Normal Thread Display
Message 220 of 304 (484915)
10-03-2008 4:36 AM 		Reply to: Message 219 by Dawn Bertot
10-03-2008 2:47 AM

Re: Comments before heading to Egypt
Bertot writes:
​
Again, nothing in this so-called puropsal offers a solution to the question of what caused the big bang. This is simply a discription of what the essence of space may or may not be like. An ant in the center of the earth that never reaches this so-called unbounded surface would not need to experience its context to understand he came from something other than his limited self, assuming he could think about it.
Why would this have anything to do with the beginning of the universe? It was just an explanation of the universe having no boundary. However the universe came into existence, this still holds true. An ant is a 3d entity, not a 2d one, so the analogy is flase when using an ant, in fact it is walking on the edge of the surface.
​
But it did have a beginning, so a boundary is a foregone conclusion.
I don;t see how one follows from the other. Again, reagrdless of how the universe came into being, as far as we know now, it has no boundary and yet is finite.
​
The start of anything is obvious that it came from somthing else, correct?
I'm not knowledgeable enough in physics to feel commenting on this, but let's say this is true, God could've made the big bang happen, I see no problem with this.
​
Great, then since God as a creator,is a very plausible explanation and no problem to science, it will be no problem for him to be discussed in the classroom, correct?
What made you think I have a problem with God in the classroom? In fact I encourage teaching everybody about religion. I however DO NOT encourage teaching a religion as science. About God's plausability as a creator....He is no more plausible then any god ever thought of as the ultimate creator. Since there is no evidence pointing to ANY god as a creator, they are all just as likely.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-03-2008 2:47 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024