| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Bill M" |
| Date: |
24 Dec 2006 03:29:05 PM |
| Object: |
A SIMPLE GOD QUESTION |
Where is there ANY objective verifiable evidence that ANY real gods exist?
The Bibles and other Holy books are no more than the words, opinions, myths,
fables and implausible tales and contradictions of ancient men of totally
unknown veracity. Why should we base our lives on this totally unreliable
and unverifiable information?
Where is there ANY objective verifiable evidence supplied by ANY Gods? If
there is a REAL God why does he not directly confirm his existence, wishes
and commands to all his creations in some direct reliable and understandable
manner?
Can it be that he does not exist except in the imaginations of man???
.
|
|
| User: "Dan Wood" |
|
| Title: Re: God Could Not Have been Created(wasA SIMPLE GOD QUESTION) |
02 Jan 2007 12:46:42 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message
news:-budnRAM5r5oQgTYnZ2dnUVZ_ruknZ2d@comcast.com...
Dan Wood wrote:
"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message
news:ZvUlh.615335$QZ1.33027@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Dan Wood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote
[snip]
What was the false statement? If you cannot back up
your charge against me, then it is you making false
accusations and you are the false accuser. And I
certainly didn't make any reference to Isaac Newton.
The statement you made about scientist above. It was made out
of ignorance, and with the deliberate attempt to defame scientists.
I won't as you to support your accusations, because I know you
can't.
Actually, I can! It actually began with Einstein whose general theory
of
relativity was the first indication of an expanding universe. It
predicted
it. However, "He was disturbed by the idea that of a universe that
blows up". He wrote in a letter to a friend, "This circumstance
irritates me, to admit such possibilities seems senseless".
(see Robert Jastrow, 1987, pg. 17)
Einstein, he 1917 after he formulated his theory of relativity realized
that his formula called for an expanding universe, which implied
a beginning to the universe. In order to have his theory support
his belief in a _static_ universe, he introduced a constant.
S. Hawking, wrote, "A good example of this (mistakes) was Einstein,
who called the cosmological constant, which he introduced when he
was trying to make a static model of the universe, the biggest mistake
of my life.
(see Hawking, 1988, pg. 151)
Einstein wasn't the only notable scientist who had problems with the
Big Bang. Eddington wrote in 1931, I simply do not believe the
present order of things started off with a bang. ...the expanding
universe is preposperious ..increadible. It leaves me cold. An M.I.T.
professor, Phil Morrison said "I find it hard to accept the Big Bang
theory I would like to reject it. Hoyle clearly did not like the B.B.
Theory, he called is the scientist sarcastically called the explosion a
'big bang' a label that stuck. In 1948 he presented his "steady state"
hypothesis as opposed to the idea of an expanding universe.
(See Robert Jastrow, 1978, pg. 102,103)
This is not all, today we have numerous attempts to somehow sustain
and hold on to the idea of an eternity for existance. This is the
motive
for parallel universes, bubble universes, cycling universes,
mother-daughter universes. etc.
Your slur, which is still at the top of this post accused scientists of
secularist motives for favoring the steady state universe. I will
repeat
it
here so that you may read your own words:
You continue saying "scientist". However, I was very specific -
I was in reference strictly to secularist (atheist) scientist.
One reason that the "steady state theory" was so
popular with secularist was the fact that the universe
was eternal. It had no beginning. Therefore, there was
no possibility of a creator. When it was discovered that
the universe was expanding and had a beginning, secular
scientist were upset and dismayed. The "steady state"
universe ruled out the possibility of a creator, but a
universe which had a beginning left room for a creator.
This was unacceptable by secular scientist, and have tried
desperately to find another explanation for the facts.
Despite all your quotes, you did not come up with one citation which
implied
or suggested a secular motive to either Einstein or any of the other
scientists who you deframed.
I don't know what it would take for you to recognize the
validity of what I am saying.
But if you want a quote, see the book, A Brief History of
Time, by Stephen Hawking. In this book, Hawking openly
acknowledges his attempt to close the door to a creator.
He states and I quote, "So long as the universe had a
beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if
the universe is really self-contained, having no boundries
and or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it
would simply be. What place then for a creator." end of
quote.
(page 141)
But again: as I pointed out Einstein's theory of relativity
indictated that the universe was expanding and not static,
eternal and unchanging.
But he simply could not accept an expanding universe.
So, he modified his equation, so as to reflect what he
expected - a static, unchanging universe. This is not
defaming him, it's a statement of fact.
Adding the comment about Fred Hoyle backfires
because he started out an atheist, and then became a strong believer in
God.
At the time the Big Bang was advanced, Hoyle _was_ an
atheist. When he called it a "big bang" he was an atheist.
His "big bang" label was meant as a derision, but the
label stuck.
He later commented about the incredible events
involving three elements coming together at precisely at
an incredible short window of time to form carbon. He
said of this shook his atheism.
So, Hoyle rejected atheism later. This does not "backfire"
on any statements he made at the time when he was an atheist.
I am beginning to suspect that you are reading far more into
my words, than I meant or intended them to mean.
< CLIP >
Contrary to your statement, the Bible does not support a Big Bang
theory, or a universe which began billions of years ago as a fiery
ball.
Where did I say it did? You are just making stuff up! In
fact you cannot point to a single place where I introduced
the Bible into this discussion? The fact is, I haven't.
At no time have I attempted to "prove" anything by
the Jewish - Christian Bible. I don't recognize it as a science
textbook. Therefore, I do not appeal to it regarding
discussions relating to anything scientific.
You had stated that you accept the Judeo-Christian concept of God. The
Judeo-Christian concept of God is based on the Bible. And one of the
news-groups this is being posted in is "alt.bible" which is where I am
posting from.
One can become convinced that a creator exist without "naming"
him. And I am convinced, but I cannot insist that the creator is the
Judeo - Christian God. There is nothing to suggest it is. But in
alt.christian newsgroup, it is this traditional God that is being
attacked. So it would be folly to try defending the beliefs
of some other god(s) such as the Pagan gods of Greece
and ancient Rome. These are not the gods being attacked by
secularist who visit christian NGs.
A steady state universe would not need to be eternal. It is what
theologians would expect if the universe was created by God.
So, you feel qualified to speak for theologians? Fine, I don't!
But, I don't believe you can honestly represent those whom you
consider to be opponents. In any case, I strongly suspect
you cannot represent _all_ and maybe no theologians.
You introduced the Bible, I did not. But since you did, can
you tell me where it goes into any great detail concerning
the beginning? I suspect there is quite a lot it doesn't address.
Does it mention the big Bang and the expansion of the universe;
does it mention anything at all pertaining to the quirk soup:
Planck time, the decoupling; gravitons, the formation of
protons: the appearerence of hydrogen, helium deuterium or
how carbon was fashioned out or three different elements
in the furnace of first generation stars?
You said, "The 'steady state' universe ruled out the possibility
of a creator, but a universe which had a beginning left room for
a creator."
Obviously, it does not. Until the Big Bang theory, theologians merely
assumed that the universe has remained in the same state it has since it
was
created by God.
This may be true. I'm not familiar with the works of theologians,
so I don't know. But the reality that the universe had a beginning
makes room for a creator.
That is:
Unchanged, as God had created it six thousand years ago.
Please explain what this 6,000 year old universe, which you
brought up has to do with me?
It's part of the Judeo-Christian concept of God which you brought up.
I do not and never have subscribed nor defended the 6000 year
old notion which some medieval bishop asserted.
I will defend even you if I thought you were being maligned
I do not know where you are getting this from: is it from anything
I have written? In any case, your aim is 180 degrees off it's mark.
Your statement is a non sequitur. It relates to nothing I've written.
You seem to have problems remembering what you said. You couldn't
remember
the slur you made against scientists. You couldn't remember what you
said
about everything needing a beginning.
I did not slur scientist, and as far as me saying everything must have
a beginning - you are confusing me with someone else. I've never
said that God must have a beginning.
I brought up Isaac Newton because his theory of universal
gravitation dominated science for over two hundred years until
Einstein developed the General Theory of Relativity. The "steady
state" universe can be attributed to Newton who supported it
despite that fact that it conflicted with his theory of gravitation.
Newton was _not_ a _secular_scientist. But he was a scientist, often
called the greatest scientific mind of all time. I don't believe he
wrote
about the universe being either static or expanding. The "steady state"
hypothesis was advanced by Fred Hoyle and 2 other scientist in 1948.
A little after Newton's time. But historically, scientist thought the
universe was eternal.
Newton's theory of gravity stated that any two pieces of matter was
attracted to each other to a degree directly proportional to their
combined
mass, and indirectly proportional to the square of the distance between
them. That implies that all matter was attracted to all other matter in
the
universe and that the total attraction would result in the universe
collapsing.
This is not certain, It depends on how much dark matter is in the
universe. But I remember reading somewhere, that it doesn't
make any difference it seems that the expansion has began
accelarating.
To counter this, Newton speculated an infinite universe in which there
would
be no center for the universe to collapse into.
Okay.
A steady state universe does not have to be eternal. Newton merely
believed
that the universe was the same as it was when God created it.
Newton was a brillant scientist, but much has been learned since his
day.
The reality that the universe had a beginning is based upon the
discovery
that we live in an expanding universe.
As I said previously, Newton was religious. In fact he wrote as
much on theology as he did on science.
Ok, but I don't understand what this has to do with anything.
That is because you forgot the slur you made against scientist when you
claimed that they proved the study state universe for secular reasons.
Two things: 1) It wasn't a slur and 2) Newton was _not_ a secular.
I was very specific when I made reference to _secular_ scientist.
A further note: Hawking stated, "he odds against a universe like
ours emerging out of something like the big bang are enormous.
I think there are clearly religious overtones. But I think most
scientist prefer to shy away from the religious side of it".
===>The whole idea of the "Big Bang" was invented by a Catholic priest.
Not exactly. The big bang cosmology is built upon the work
done by several scientist over a period of years. The first hint
of an expanding was made by Melvin Slipher. He had observed
that about a dozen nearby galaxies were moving away from
earth at very high speeds. He presented his finding at a meeting
of the American Astronomical Society in 1914. One of the
people in his audience was Edwin Hubble. He picked up on
this finding and built a new picture of the universe.
But the most significant contributor was Albert Einstein, who
while working as a engineer, advanced his theory of relativity.
The mathematical formulas by Einstein, in his theory published
in 1917 predicted an expanding universe. Eventhough Einstein
failed to recognize this universal feature embedded in his
formulas: he believed the universe was static, so he added
a constant in order to have his theory conform to his belief
in an unchanging universe. Einstein's "error" was caught
by three scientist, Willem de Sitter, Alexander Friedmann
and George Lemaitre. it became the basis upon which the
expanding universe, and ultimately the big bang is founded.
However it was Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman who had
predicted the existance of the cosmic fireball in 1948 while
they were working with George Gamow on the big bang
theory of the creation of the elements.
The final proof of the big bang was made by two scientist,
Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1965 who won a
nobel prize for their discovery of the Big bang remnant
in the form of cosmic radiation coming from all directions
as had been predicted by Alpher and Herman.
George Lemaitre was a mathematician, earned a degree in
engineering at the University of Louvain, studied Cosmology
at Cambridge under Sir Arthur Eddington and earned a
Ph.D in cosmology at M.I.T. He became a Catholic priest
in 1925.
Over the years, I done a fairly prodigious amount of reading
on this subject. I have noticed that the Lemaitre's contribution
is very often overlooked. Many books and articles on the
subject never mentioned him.
Why is this. It is because he turned to religion and became
a priest, or is it because he played a minor role in the history
of the Big Bang?
In fact there is increasing evidence that BB theory is wrong. -- L.
There has been several proposals to replace the Big Bang cosmology
but one major problem that none has explained is the background
cosmic radiation discovered by Penzia an Wilson in 1965.
You accused my of defaming scientist. Which I did not and
I made my case. So, you owe me an apology. I hope you are
man enough to offer one.
You ask for a quote I provided it and I gave the reference.
Dan Wood
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Wood" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolving Evolution..."Big Bang" theory is a Catholic priests invention (believe it or not ).................................................................................................... |
04 Jan 2007 12:57:45 AM |
|
|
The idea of the "Big Bang" was invented by a Catholic priest.
Not exactly. The big bang cosmology is built upon the work
done by several scientist over a period of years. The first hint
of an expanding was made by Melvin Slipher. He had observed
that about a dozen nearby galaxies were moving away from
earth at very high speeds. He presented his finding at a meeting
of the American Astronomical Society in 1914. One of the
people in his audience was Edwin Hubble. He picked up on
this finding and built a new picture of the universe.
But the most significant contributor was Albert Einstein, who
while working as a engineer, advanced his theory of relativity.
The mathematical formulas by Einstein, in his theory published
in 1917 predicted an expanding universe. Eventhough Einstein
failed to recognize this universal feature embedded in his
formulas: he believed the universe was static, so he added
a constant in order to have his theory conform to his belief
in an unchanging universe. Einstein's "error" was caught
by three scientist, Willem de Sitter, Alexander Friedmann
and George Lemaitre. it became the basis upon which the
expanding universe, and ultimately the big bang is founded.
However it was Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman who had
predicted the existance of the cosmic fireball in 1948 while
they were working with George Gamow on the big bang
theory of the creation of the elements.
The final proof of the big bang was made by two scientist,
Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1965 who won a
nobel prize for their discovery of the Big bang remnant
in the form of cosmic radiation coming from all directions
as had been predicted by Alpher and Herman.
George Lemaitre was a mathematician, earned a degree in
engineering at the University of Louvain, studied Cosmology
at Cambridge under Sir Arthur Eddington and earned a
Ph.D in cosmology at M.I.T. He became a Catholic priest
in 1925.
Over the years, I done a fairly prodigious amount of reading
on this subject. I have noticed that the Lemaitre's contribution
is very often overlooked. Many books and articles on the
subject never mentioned him.
Why is this. It is because he turned to religion and became
a priest, or is it because he played a minor role in the history
of the Big Bang?
Dan Wood
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Wood" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolving Evolution..."Big Bang" theory is a Catholic priests invention (believe it or not ).................................................................................................... |
06 Jan 2007 03:44:08 PM |
|
|
The idea of the "Big Bang" was invented by a Catholic priest.
Not exactly. The big bang cosmology is built upon the work
done by several scientist over a period of years. The first hint
of an expanding was made by Melvin Slipher. He had observed
that about a dozen nearby galaxies were moving away from
earth at very high speeds. He presented his finding at a meeting
of the American Astronomical Society in 1914. One of the
people in his audience was Edwin Hubble. He picked up on
this finding and built a new picture of the universe.
But the most significant contributor was Albert Einstein, who
while working as a engineer, advanced his theory of relativity.
The mathematical formulas by Einstein, in his theory published
in 1917 predicted an expanding universe. Eventhough Einstein
failed to recognize this universal feature embedded in his
formulas: he believed the universe was static, so he added
a constant in order to have his theory conform to his belief
in an unchanging universe. Einstein's "error" was caught
by three scientist, Willem de Sitter, Alexander Friedmann
and George Lemaitre. it became the basis upon which the
expanding universe, and ultimately the big bang is founded.
However it was Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman who had
predicted the existance of the cosmic fireball in 1948 while
they were working with George Gamow on the big bang
theory of the creation of the elements.
The final proof of the big bang was made by two scientist,
Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1965 who won a
nobel prize for their discovery of the Big bang remnant
in the form of cosmic radiation coming from all directions
as had been predicted by Alpher and Herman.
George Lemaitre was a mathematician, earned a degree in
engineering at the University of Louvain, studied Cosmology
at Cambridge under Sir Arthur Eddington and earned a
Ph.D in cosmology at M.I.T. He became a Catholic priest
in 1925.
Over the years, I done a fairly prodigious amount of reading
on this subject. I have noticed that the Lemaitre's contribution
is very often overlooked. Many books and articles on the
subject never mentioned him.
Why is this. It is because he turned to religion and became
a priest, or is it because he played a minor role in the history
of the Big Bang?
Dan Wood
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: God Could Not Have been Created(wasA SIMPLE GOD QUESTION) |
02 Jan 2007 01:05:02 AM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
===>The whole idea of the "Big Bang" was invented by a Catholic priest.
In fact there is increasing evidence that BB theory is wrong. -- L.
No, the Big Bang theory was proposed by an astroneomer named Hubble and
there's evidence that the rate of expansion is increasing rather than
decreasing and the explanation seems to be that empty space exerts a
force opposing gravity, much like the cosmological constant that
Einstein proposed almost a hundred years ago.
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: God Could Not Have been Created(wasA SIMPLE GOD QUESTION) |
30 Dec 2006 03:38:37 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 07:48:42 GMT, "Weatherwax"
<Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"Dan Wood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote
"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"Dan Wood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote
This is my contention. God is eternal without beginning and
without an end.
One reason that the "steady state theory" was so popular with
secularist was the fact that the universe was eternal. It had no
beginning. Therefore, there was no possibility of a creator.
When it was discovered that the universe was expanding and
had a beginning, secular scientist were upset and dismayed.
The "steady state" universe ruled out the possibility of a creator,
but a universe which had a beginning left room for a creator.
This was unacceptable by secular scientist, and have tried
desperately to find another explanation for the facts.
Your explanation is not consistent with history.
Isaac Newton was a very religious Christian, and Newton was a
strong supporter of a steady state universe although it was in
conflict with his theory of universal gravity.
It's worse than that. The "reasons" he lies about are bigoted,
outright slanders.
You say this about everyone who don't see it your way. Why are you
so miserable?
Wood is lying again - he knows I only call people lie, liars.
But it's all he's got.
You are the one who made the false statement about scientists. Why don't
you just admit that you are wrong?
You're kidding.
A universe which evolved and changes with time is contrary to
religious dogma which claims that the world was created in six
days. Therefore religious dogma held to a steady state universe
which remained as God had created it.
--Wax
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: God Could Not Have been Created(wasA SIMPLE GOD QUESTION) |
27 Dec 2006 04:35:35 PM |
|
|
Jim07D6 wrote:
"Dan Wood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> said:
"Larry" <lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
Here's the problem. Modern physics says not only that the universe's
matter had a beginning, but the universe's space-time had a beginning.
So where was God before the universe was created, if God created the
universe? In some sort of space-time. So God could have been created,
along with But if the time in which this God character exists was
also created by
Welcome to God almighty.
Who was created by an even more powerful God.
And that God was created by an even more powerful God.
And that God was created by an even more powerful God.And that God was
created by an even more powerful God.And that God was created by an
even more powerful God.And that God was created by an even more
powerful God.And that God was created by an even more powerful God.And
that God was created by an even more powerful God.And that God was
created by an even more powerful God.And that God was created by an
even more powerful God. etc.
You would have to ascribe to God something that theist do not.
You would have to say that God is transient, an ad interim being,
this is the opposite of eternal. No theist believes this.
Scientist until recient very recient history thought the Universe
was eternal, without a beginning. If the universe had no beginning,
then it could _not_ have been created. If otoh, the universe had a
beginning, then and only then could there be room for a creator.
If God had a beginning only then could he have been created.
Yes, and it is plausible that God had a beginning.
Modern physics says not only that the universe's matter had a
beginning, but the universe's space-time had a beginning.
===>Not exactly!
Only that its present form and arrangment had a beginning.
But so did and does every apparent "thing", each really
itself a local and temporary process.
Nature, the eternal COSMOS, is THE PROCESS of formation and
transformation of all that exists. Pick any point of
formation of a "thing" and you can call it a "beginning".
When it is transformed, youcan call it the "end".
The SUBSTANCE of all that exists is ETERNAL.
SEE: Law of Conservation of matter/energy. -- L.
So where was
God before the universe was created, if God created the universe? In
some sort of supernatural space-time. So God could have been created,
along with the supernatural space-time in which God exists, by an even
more powerful God who pre-existed in a super-supernatural space-time.
In fact it is not plausible that God had no beginning.
There is the problem of "getting to now". If one God always existed in
a space-time that has always existed, there is an unlimited amount of
time (an "infinite amount", put roughly) before it ever gets to any
particular moment. So it "never gets to now".
So instead of one God existing forever, there are an infinite number
of Gods, each created, along with its space-time, by the one before.
And given what we see, each God started out just like us. We will
eventually evolve into a God, and create the next world. Wowee zowee!
-- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Wood" |
|
| Title: Re: God Could Not Have been Created(wasA SIMPLE GOD QUESTION) |
27 Dec 2006 05:32:52 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message
news:JMidnd7379O5aA_YnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@comcast.com...
Jim07D6 wrote:
"Dan Wood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> said:
"Larry" <lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
Here's the problem. Modern physics says not only that the universe's
matter had a beginning, but the universe's space-time had a beginning.
So where was God before the universe was created, if God created the
universe? In some sort of space-time. So God could have been created,
along with But if the time in which this God character exists was
also created by
Welcome to God almighty.
Who was created by an even more powerful God.
And that God was created by an even more powerful God.
And that God was created by an even more powerful God.And that God was
created by an even more powerful God.And that God was created by an
even more powerful God.And that God was created by an even more
powerful God.And that God was created by an even more powerful God.And
that God was created by an even more powerful God.And that God was
created by an even more powerful God.And that God was created by an
even more powerful God. etc.
You would have to ascribe to God something that theist do not.
You would have to say that God is transient, an ad interim being,
this is the opposite of eternal. No theist believes this.
Scientist until recient very recient history thought the Universe
was eternal, without a beginning. If the universe had no beginning,
then it could _not_ have been created. If otoh, the universe had a
beginning, then and only then could there be room for a creator.
If God had a beginning only then could he have been created.
Yes, and it is plausible that God had a beginning.
Modern physics says not only that the universe's matter had a
beginning, but the universe's space-time had a beginning.
===>Not exactly!
Only that its present form and arrangment had a beginning.
But so did and does every apparent "thing", each really
itself a local and temporary process.
Nature, the eternal COSMOS, is THE PROCESS of formation and
transformation of all that exists. Pick any point of
formation of a "thing" and you can call it a "beginning".
When it is transformed, youcan call it the "end".
This is science? It sounds more like some strange ancient
philosophy and not modern science. Where did this notion
opinionate? It sounds like the philosophy of Epicurus.
The SUBSTANCE of all that exists is ETERNAL.
SEE: Law of Conservation of matter/energy. -- L.
This is a modern law of science, however all known laws of
science break down when we run the tape of the universe
backwards at Planck time 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang.
DanWood
So where was
God before the universe was created, if God created the universe? In
some sort of supernatural space-time. So God could have been created,
along with the supernatural space-time in which God exists, by an even
more powerful God who pre-existed in a super-supernatural space-time.
In fact it is not plausible that God had no beginning.
There is the problem of "getting to now". If one God always existed in
a space-time that has always existed, there is an unlimited amount of
time (an "infinite amount", put roughly) before it ever gets to any
particular moment. So it "never gets to now".
So instead of one God existing forever, there are an infinite number
of Gods, each created, along with its space-time, by the one before.
And given what we see, each God started out just like us. We will
eventually evolve into a God, and create the next world. Wowee zowee!
-- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: God Could Not Have been Created(wasA SIMPLE GOD QUESTION) |
27 Dec 2006 10:33:58 PM |
|
|
Dan Wood wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message
news:JMidnd7379O5aA_YnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@comcast.com...
Jim07D6 wrote:
"Dan Wood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> said:
"Larry" <lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
Here's the problem. Modern physics says not only that the universe's
matter had a beginning, but the universe's space-time had a beginning.
So where was God before the universe was created, if God created the
universe? In some sort of space-time. So God could have been created,
along with But if the time in which this God character exists was
also created by
Welcome to God almighty.
Who was created by an even more powerful God.
And that God was created by an even more powerful God.
And that God was created by an even more powerful God.And that God was
created by an even more powerful God.And that God was created by an
even more powerful God.And that God was created by an even more
powerful God.And that God was created by an even more powerful God.And
that God was created by an even more powerful God.And that God was
created by an even more powerful God.And that God was created by an
even more powerful God. etc.
You would have to ascribe to God something that theist do not.
You would have to say that God is transient, an ad interim being,
this is the opposite of eternal. No theist believes this.
Scientist until recient very recient history thought the Universe
was eternal, without a beginning. If the universe had no beginning,
then it could _not_ have been created. If otoh, the universe had a
beginning, then and only then could there be room for a creator.
If God had a beginning only then could he have been created.
Yes, and it is plausible that God had a beginning.
Modern physics says not only that the universe's matter had a
beginning, but the universe's space-time had a beginning.
===>Not exactly!
Only that its present form and arrangment had a beginning.
But so did and does every apparent "thing", each really
itself a local and temporary process.
Nature, the eternal COSMOS, is THE PROCESS of formation and
transformation of all that exists. Pick any point of
formation of a "thing" and you can call it a "beginning".
When it is transformed, youcan call it the "end".
This is science? It sounds more like some strange ancient
philosophy and not modern science.
===>You don't seem to be very well versed in science.
Where did this notion
opinionate? It sounds like the philosophy of Epicurus.
===>The truth is the truth, but you picked the wrong philosopher.
My favorite is Heraclitus who, according to modern philo
"Heraclitus may accordingly be seen as the founding father of process
philosophy, at any rate in the intellectual tradition of the West. And
the static system of Parmenides affords its sharpest contrast and most
radical opposition. However, the paradigm substance philosophy of
classical antiquity was the atomism of Leucippus and Democritus and
Epicurus, which pictured all of nature as composed of unchanging and
inert material atoms whose only commerce with process was an alteration
of their positioning in space and time."
"Process Philosophy" - STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY
You obviously never heard of process philosophy or its Greek founder
some 2600 years ago, the Ephesian HERACLITUS.
"As Heraclitus saw it, reality is at bottom not a constellation of
things at all, but one of processes: we must at all costs avoid the
fallacy of substantializing nature into perduring things (substances)
because it is not stable things but fundamental forces and the varied
and fluctuating activities which they produce that make up this world of
ours. Process is fundamental: the river is not an object, but an
ever-changing flow; the sun is not a thing, but a flaming fire.
Everything in nature is a matter of process, of activity, of change.
Heraclitus taught that panta rhei ("everything flows") and this
principle exerted a profound influence on classical antiquity...
The SUBSTANCE of all that exists is ETERNAL.
SEE: Law of Conservation of matter/energy. -- L.
This is a modern law of science, however all known laws of
science break down
===>Nonsense.
Nothing can came from or turn into nothing.
One "modern" term is "event metaphysics".
SEE:
http://www.ctr4process.org/programs/LSI/2006-Cosmology/EastmanT%20-%20Our%20Cosmos,%20from%20Substance%20to%20Process.pdf
(OUR COSMOS, FROM SUBSTANCE TO PROCESS by Timothy E. Eastman)
Eastman writes:
"The event metaphysics, or process framework, that has been rapidly
gaining ground since the late 20th century, provides a fundamental
alternative to the substance metaphysics described above [Clayton, 2004;
Nobo, 2004]. An event metaphysics treats events and processes as more
fundamental than “things.” An object or substance is not simply composed
of more elemental objects (e.g., atoms or “elementary” particles). As
found in quantum field theory, macroscopic objects are complex
integrations of particles and fields, which in turn are constituted by a
plenum of events at multiple scales [Jungerman, 2000]. All things are
constituted ultimately by networks of relationships, from microscopic to
macroscopic and cosmic scale.2 Research in nonlinear dynamics and
ecology also demonstrates the emergence of new structures and entities
in multiply-interconnected systems [Laszlo, 2006]. Although elements of
the new event metaphysics have been long present as emphasized by
Whitehead and others, signatures of its presence in the new physics and
other sciences have been primarily evident only within the past
few decades [Clayton, 2004; Eastman and Keeton, 2004a,b].
when we run the tape of the universe
backwards at Planck time 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang.
DanWood
===>That is so funny!
Where did you get that tape, Dan? ;-)
Hope you start getting some education. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: God Could Not Have been Created(wasA SIMPLE GOD QUESTION) |
27 Dec 2006 05:58:31 PM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> said:
Jim07D6 wrote:
<...>
Yes, and it is plausible that God had a beginning.
Modern physics says not only that the universe's matter had a
beginning, but the universe's space-time had a beginning.
===>Not exactly!
Only that its present form and arrangment had a beginning.
But so did and does every apparent "thing", each really
itself a local and temporary process.
Nature, the eternal COSMOS, is THE PROCESS of formation and
transformation of all that exists. Pick any point of
formation of a "thing" and you can call it a "beginning".
When it is transformed, youcan call it the "end".
The SUBSTANCE of all that exists is ETERNAL.
SEE: Law of Conservation of matter/energy. -- L.
Perhaps I should have said that matter, space-time (and energy) had a
beginning in that particular "incarnation" or instantiation or cycle
or lifespan.
However, I reserve judgement on whether the net sum of matter/energy
is conserved as such in all incarnations. Perhaps "all that exists" is
conserved in some way, such that matter/energy/space/time might be the
entities whose net sum is conserved. Perhaps in one incarnation of the
universe, time does not convertible to space and so does not
participate.
Finally, one could speculate that in any given instantiation, there is
a slow (or not) one-way conversion (maintaining conservation, of
course) of, say, time, into something else, and when this conversion
"uses up" the thing, a singularity occurs and that world ends, and
another begins.
Time seems to be one-way, in our universe.
-- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "..andnothingbut" |
|
| Title: Re: God Could Not Have been Created(wasA SIMPLE GOD QUESTION) |
27 Dec 2006 11:36:40 AM |
|
|
"Dan Wood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:%%wkh.15501$_X.13745
@bigfe9:
"Larry" <lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1167171920.551043.10700@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
duke wrote:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 16:29:05 -0500, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
Where is there ANY objective verifiable evidence that ANY real gods
exist?
The big bang.
That only proves the big bang happened. Where is the evi8dence that any
god created it?
Your answer is the exact same as my not too bright neighbor, who said
"see that tree ... that's proof of god".
Can it be that he does not exist except in the imaginations of
man???
ONly if you profess matter and energy created themselves.
Typical uneducated fundy response.
No onoe (except idiotic zealots) EVER said matter, energy or "the
beginning of life on earth" created itself.
Welcome to God almighty.
Who was created by an even more powerful God.
And that God was created by an even more powerful God.
And that God was created by an even more powerful God.And that God was
created by an even more powerful God.And that God was created by an
even more powerful God.And that God was created by an even more
powerful God.And that God was created by an even more powerful God.And
that God was created by an even more powerful God.And that God was
created by an even more powerful God.And that God was created by an
even more powerful God. etc.
You would have to ascribe to God something that theist do not.
You would have to say that God is transient, an ad interim being,
this is the opposite of eternal. No theist believes this.
Scientist until recient very recient history thought the Universe
was eternal, without a beginning. If the universe had no beginning,
then it could _not_ have been created. If otoh, the universe had a
beginning, then and only then could there be room for a creator.
If God had a beginning only then could he have been created.
Again with the typical fundy BS.
First of all, there is scientific argument about the cycling unuverse -
which means this "big bang" was not a beginning of any kind.
Second - you can only "claim" a creator if you ASSUME there needed to be
a creator to create the universe.
No one knows that.
We have NO IDEA what hapened before or at the big bang ... and neither do
you.
Inventing someone or something to explain it away is mere folly - not
fact.
If anything could be forever - then the universe, in a cycling mode,
could be forever.
If everything had a beginning, then "gawd" had a beginning.
This concept of "forever" is nothing more than an excerpt from a child's
fairy tale.
Dan
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: God Could Not Have been Created(wasA SIMPLE GOD QUESTION) |
27 Dec 2006 01:27:41 PM |
|
|
"..andnothingbut" <thetruth@xohelpme..> said:
"Dan Wood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:%%wkh.15501$_X.13745
@bigfe9:
"Larry" <lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1167171920.551043.10700@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
duke wrote:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 16:29:05 -0500, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
Where is there ANY objective verifiable evidence that ANY real gods
exist?
The big bang.
That only proves the big bang happened. Where is the evi8dence that any
god created it?
Your answer is the exact same as my not too bright neighbor, who said
"see that tree ... that's proof of god".
Can it be that he does not exist except in the imaginations of
man???
ONly if you profess matter and energy created themselves.
Typical uneducated fundy response.
No onoe (except idiotic zealots) EVER said matter, energy or "the
beginning of life on earth" created itself.
Well... in that crude language ("created itself") yes, but there are
some interesting ideas at:
http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Time.html
http://www.ctmu.org/
-- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Wood" |
|
| Title: Re: God Could Not Have been Created(wasA SIMPLE GOD QUESTION) |
27 Dec 2006 05:17:45 PM |
|
|
"..andnothingbut" <thetruth@xohelpme..> wrote in message
news:Xns98A6804FD92B7thetruthxohelpme@199.45.49.11...
"Dan Wood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:%%wkh.15501$_X.13745
@bigfe9:
[snip]
beginning of life on earth" created itself.
Welcome to God almighty.
Who was created by an even more powerful God.
And that God was created by an even more powerful God.
And that God was created by an even more powerful God.And that God was
created by an even more powerful God.And that God was created by an
even more powerful God.And that God was created by an even more
powerful God.And that God was created by an even more powerful God.And
that God was created by an even more powerful God.And that God was
created by an even more powerful God.And that God was created by an
even more powerful God. etc.
You would have to ascribe to God something that theist do not.
You would have to say that God is transient, an ad interim being,
this is the opposite of eternal. No theist believes this.
Scientist until recient very recient history thought the Universe
was eternal, without a beginning. If the universe had no beginning,
then it could _not_ have been created. If otoh, the universe had a
beginning, then and only then could there be room for a creator.
If God had a beginning only then could he have been created.
Again with the typical fundy BS.
What is a fundy to you?
First of all, there is scientific argument about the cycling unuverse -
which means this "big bang" was not a beginning of any kind.
This is in reference to a osculating universe, which only pushes the
issue back further, because each big bang followed by another big
crunch becomes weaker and weaker after each cycle. But recient
discoveries indicate that the expansion is picking up speed. This
single discovery overcomes whatever the amount of "dark matter".
Furthermore, there must have been a first. As a result, the
osculating universe does not hold much favor with today's
scientist.
Second - you can only "claim" a creator if you ASSUME there needed to be
a creator to create the universe.
No one knows that.
If the universe was eternal, there could have been no creation,
only then could one logically rule out a creation. But the universe
_had_ a beginning: this is not an assumption.
We have NO IDEA what hapened before or at the big bang ... and neither do
you. Inventing someone or something to explain it away is mere folly - not
fact.
There is reason to believe that some non-thing some immaterial force
which was, in some sense separate, apart from and outside the physical
reality. It must have preceded our universe or have our universe imbedded
in it.
This much is certain. But what metaphysical force produced our
universe?
[snip]
Dan Wood
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Merovingian" |
|
| Title: Re: God Could Not Have been Created(wasA SIMPLE GOD QUESTION) |
27 Dec 2006 05:31:18 PM |
|
|
Dan Wood wrote:
"..andnothingbut" <thetruth@xohelpme..> wrote in message
news:Xns98A6804FD92B7thetruthxohelpme@199.45.49.11...
"Dan Wood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:%%wkh.15501$_X.13745
@bigfe9:
[snip]
beginning of life on earth" created itself.
Welcome to God almighty.
Who was created by an even more powerful God.
And that God was created by an even more powerful God.
And that God was created by an even more powerful God.And that God was
created by an even more powerful God.And that God was created by an
even more powerful God.And that God was created by an even more
powerful God.And that God was created by an even more powerful God.And
that God was created by an even more powerful God.And that God was
created by an even more powerful God.And that God was created by an
even more powerful God. etc.
You would have to ascribe to God something that theist do not.
You would have to say that God is transient, an ad interim being,
this is the opposite of eternal. No theist believes this.
Scientist until recient very recient history thought the Universe
was eternal, without a beginning. If the universe had no beginning,
then it could _not_ have been created. If otoh, the universe had a
beginning, then and only then could there be room for a creator.
If God had a beginning only then could he have been created.
Again with the typical fundy BS.
What is a fundy to you?
First of all, there is scientific argument about the cycling unuverse -
which means this "big bang" was not a beginning of any kind.
This is in reference to a osculating universe, which only pushes the
issue back further, because each big bang followed by another big
crunch becomes weaker and weaker after each cycle. But recient
discoveries indicate that the expansion is picking up speed. This
single discovery overcomes whatever the amount of "dark matter".
Furthermore, there must have been a first. As a result, the
osculating universe does not hold much favor with today's
scientist.
Second - you can only "claim" a creator if you ASSUME there needed to be
a creator to create the universe.
No one knows that.
If the universe was eternal, there could have been no creation,
only then could one logically rule out a creation. But the universe
_had_ a beginning: this is not an assumption.
We have NO IDEA what hapened before or at the big bang ... and neither do
you. Inventing someone or something to explain it away is mere folly - not
fact.
There is reason to believe that some non-thing some immaterial force
which was, in some sense separate, apart from and outside the physical
reality. It must have preceded our universe or have our universe imbedded
in it.
This much is certain. But what metaphysical force produced our
universe?
[snip]
Dan Wood
Larry
Yeah...Ok Kuke Skywalker....you still have much to learn of the living
force <shakinghead>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Heywood Jablomi" |
|
| Title: Re: God Could Not Have been Created(wasA SIMPLE GOD QUESTION) |
27 Dec 2006 03:05:13 PM |
|
|
Dan Wood <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message <%%wkh.15501$_X.13745@bigfe9>
Scientist until recient very recient history thought the Universe
was eternal, without a beginning. If the universe had no beginning,
then it could _not_ have been created. If otoh, the universe had a
beginning, then and only then could there be room for a creator.
However, a god doesn't HAVE to be a creator.
--
If I was in charge of the universe, St Jude's
Hospital for Children would not need to exist
Posted with JSNewsreader Preview 0.9.7.3129
[ Followup-To: alt.bible ]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: God Could Not Have been Created(wasA SIMPLE GOD QUESTION) |
27 Dec 2006 03:10:58 PM |
|
|
"Heywood Jablomi" <IBlowHim@IAmGoingTo.com> said:
Dan Wood <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message <%%wkh.15501$_X.13745@bigfe9>
Scientist until recient very recient history thought the Universe
was eternal, without a beginning. If the universe had no beginning,
then it could _not_ have been created. If otoh, the universe had a
beginning, then and only then could there be room for a creator.
However, a god doesn't HAVE to be a creator.
Hmmm.. what does a god have to be?
-- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: God Could Not Have been Created(wasA SIMPLE GOD QUESTION) |
27 Dec 2006 06:24:28 PM |
|
|
Jim07D6 wrote:
"Heywood Jablomi" <IBlowHim@IAmGoingTo.com> said:
Dan Wood <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message <%%wkh.15501$_X.13745@bigfe9>
Scientist until recient very recient history thought the Universe
was eternal, without a beginning. If the universe had no beginning,
then it could _not_ have been created. If otoh, the universe had a
beginning, then and only then could there be room for a creator.
However, a god doesn't HAVE to be a creator.
Hmmm.. what does a god have to be?
-- Jim07D6
===>Whatever a believer wishes his "god" to be.
It has always been, and always be that way. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: God Could Not Have been Created(wasA SIMPLE GOD QUESTION) |
27 Dec 2006 04:29:00 PM |
|
|
Dan Wood wrote:
"Larry" <lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1167171920.551043.10700@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
duke wrote:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 16:29:05 -0500, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
Where is there ANY objective verifiable evidence that ANY real gods
exist?
The big bang.
Can it be that he does not exist except in the imaginations of man???
ONly if you profess matter and energy created themselves.
Welcome to God almighty.
Who was created by an even more powerful God.
And that God was created by an even more powerful God.
And that God was created by an even more powerful God.And that God was
created by an even more powerful God.And that God was created by an
even more powerful God.And that God was created by an even more
powerful God.And that God was created by an even more powerful God.And
that God was created by an even more powerful God.And that God was
created by an even more powerful God.And that God was created by an
even more powerful God. etc.
You would have to ascribe to God something that theist do not.
You would have to say that God is transient, an ad interim being,
this is the opposite of eternal. No theist believes this.
Scientist until recient very recient history thought the Universe
was eternal, without a beginning. If the universe had no beginning,
then it could _not_ have been created. If otoh, the universe had a
beginning, then and only then could there be room for a creator.
If God had a beginning only then could he have been created.
===>Dont most Christians believe that a god can transform himself into
a human and die? -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Merovingian" |
|
| Title: Re: God Could Not Have been Created(wasA SIMPLE GOD QUESTION) |
27 Dec 2006 05:26:37 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Dan Wood wrote:
"Larry" <lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1167171920.551043.10700@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
duke wrote:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 16:29:05 -0500, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
Where is there ANY objective verifiable evidence that ANY real gods
exist?
The big bang.
Can it be that he does not exist except in the imaginations of man???
ONly if you profess matter and energy created themselves.
Welcome to God almighty.
Who was created by an even more powerful God.
And that God was created by an even more powerful God.
And that God was created by an even more powerful God.And that God was
created by an even more powerful God.And that God was created by an
even more powerful God.And that God was created by an even more
powerful God.And that God was created by an even more powerful God.And
that God was created by an even more powerful God.And that God was
created by an even more powerful God.And that God was created by an
even more powerful God. etc.
You would have to ascribe to God something that theist do not.
You would have to say that God is transient, an ad interim being,
this is the opposite of eternal. No theist believes this.
Scientist until recient very recient history thought the Universe
was eternal, without a beginning. If the universe had no beginning,
then it could _not_ have been created. If otoh, the universe had a
beginning, then and only then could there be room for a creator.
If God had a beginning only then could he have been created.
===>Dont most Christians believe that a god can transform himself into
a human and die? -- L.
Yeah ...but he comes back to life...just like the Spielburg
classic..E.T....What we need to do is take this so called Shroud of
Turin and get some DNA and clone us up a Jesus so we can test the
validity of the story.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: God Could Not Have been Created(wasA SIMPLE GOD QUESTION) |
27 Dec 2006 08:58:37 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 11:17:12 -0500, "Dan Wood"
<drwood@bellsouth.net> let us all know that:
"Larry" <lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1167171920.551043.10700@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
duke wrote:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 16:29:05 -0500, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
Where is there ANY objective verifiable evidence that ANY real gods
exist?
The big bang.
Can it be that he does not exist except in the imaginations of man???
ONly if you profess matter and energy created themselves.
Welcome to God almighty.
Who was created by an even more powerful God.
And that God was created by an even more powerful God.
And that God was created by an even more powerful God.And that God was
created by an even more powerful God.And that God was created by an
even more powerful God.And that God was created by an even more
powerful God.And that God was created by an even more powerful God.And
that God was created by an even more powerful God.And that God was
created by an even more powerful God.And that God was created by an
even more powerful God. etc.
You would have to ascribe to God something that theist do not.
You would have to say that God is transient, an ad interim being,
this is the opposite of eternal. No theist believes this.
Scientist until recient very recient history thought the Universe
was eternal, without a beginning. If the universe had no beginning,
then it could _not_ have been created. If otoh, the universe had a
beginning, then and only then could there be room for a creator.
If God had a beginning only then could he have been created.
That brings up the question "why wasn't god created?"
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Wood" |
|
| Title: Re: God Could Not Have been Created(wasA SIMPLE GOD QUESTION) |
27 Dec 2006 09:19:30 PM |
|
|
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:nmc6p2hgeegmmlhi6h5q1m31e87bqj838f@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 11:17:12 -0500, "Dan Wood"
<drwood@bellsouth.net> let us all know that:
"Larry" <lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1167171920.551043.10700@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
duke wrote:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 16:29:05 -0500, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
Where is there ANY objective verifiable evidence that ANY real gods
exist?
The big bang.
Can it be that he does not exist except in the imaginations of
man???
ONly if you profess matter and energy created themselves.
Welcome to God almighty.
Who was created by an even more powerful God.
And that God was created by an even more powerful God.
And that God was created by an even more powerful God.And that God was
created by an even more powerful God.And that God was created by an
even more powerful God.And that God was created by an even more
powerful God.And that God was created by an even more powerful God.And
that God was created by an even more powerful God.And that God was
created by an even more powerful God.And that God was created by an
even more powerful God. etc.
You would have to ascribe to God something that theist do not.
You would have to say that God is transient, an ad interim being,
this is the opposite of eternal. No theist believes this.
Scientist until recient very recient history thought the Universe
was eternal, without a beginning. If the universe had no beginning,
then it could _not_ have been created. If otoh, the universe had a
beginning, then and only then could there be room for a creator.
If God had a beginning only then could he have been created.
That brings up the question "why wasn't god created?"
If God had a beginning, then the question would be how did he
begin; or who or what caused him to come into being.
But from Jewish and Christian prospectives, God did not come
into existance, he always existed. Thus logically the question
is moot. He needed no creator.
Dan Wood, DDS
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: God Could Not Have been Created(wasA SIMPLE GOD QUESTION) |
28 Dec 2006 12:25:18 PM |
|
|
Dan Wood wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:nmc6p2hgeegmmlhi6h5q1m31e87bqj838f@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 11:17:12 -0500, "Dan Wood"
<drwood@bellsouth.net> let us all know that:
"Larry" <lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1167171920.551043.10700@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
duke wrote:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 16:29:05 -0500, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
Where is there ANY objective verifiable evidence that ANY real gods
exist?
The big bang.
Can it be that he does not exist except in the imaginations of
man???
ONly if you profess matter and energy created themselves.
Welcome to God almighty.
Who was created by an even more powerful God.
And that God was created by an even more powerful God.
And that God was created by an even more powerful God.And that God was
created by an even more powerful God.And that God was created by an
even more powerful God.And that God was created by an even more
powerful God.And that God was created by an even more powerful God.And
that God was created by an even more powerful God.And that God was
created by an even more powerful God.And that God was created by an
even more powerful God. etc.
You would have to ascribe to God something that theist do not.
You would have to say that God is transient, an ad interim being,
this is the opposite of eternal. No theist believes this.
Scientist until recient very recient history thought the Universe
was eternal, without a beginning. If the universe had no beginning,
then it could _not_ have been created. If otoh, the universe had a
beginning, then and only then could there be room for a creator.
If God had a beginning only then could he have been created.
That brings up the question "why wasn't god created?"
If God had a beginning, then the question would be how did he
begin; or who or what caused him to come into being.
But from Jewish and Christian prospectives, God did not come
into existance, he always existed. Thus logically the question
is moot. He needed no creator.
===>That is why those "Jewish and Christian prospectives"
are illogical.
They claim that
- nothing can come into being without a "creator",
and that
- the more complex a thing or being is, the more it
requires a "creator",
yet they imagine a being that is complex enough to
create averything that exists, yet claim that that
particular being did not requuire a "creator".
Certainly makes no sense. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Wood" |
|
| Title: Re: God Could Not Have been Created(wasA SIMPLE GOD QUESTION) |
28 Dec 2006 01:05:51 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message
news:Spadnb7muK2TkQnYnZ2dnUVZ_qemnZ2d@comcast.com...
Dan Wood wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:nmc6p2hgeegmmlhi6h5q1m31e87bqj838f@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 11:17:12 -0500, "Dan Wood"
<drwood@bellsouth.net> let us all know that:
"Larry" <lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1167171920.551043.10700@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
duke wrote:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 16:29:05 -0500, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
Where is there ANY objective verifiable evidence that ANY real gods
exist?
The big bang.
Can it be that he does not exist except in the imaginations of
man???
ONly if you profess matter and energy created themselves.
Welcome to God almighty.
Who was created by an even more powerful God.
And that God was created by an even more powerful God.
And that God was created by an even more powerful God.And that God was
created by an even more powerful God.And that God was created by an
even more powerful God.And that God was created by an even more
powerful God.And that God was created by an even more powerful God.And
that God was created by an even more powerful God.And that God was
created by an even more powerful God.And that God was created by an
even more powerful God. etc.
You would have to ascribe to God something that theist do not.
You would have to say that God is transient, an ad interim being,
this is the opposite of eternal. No theist believes this.
Scientist until recient very recient history thought the Universe
was eternal, without a beginning. If the universe had no beginning,
then it could _not_ have been created. If otoh, the universe had a
beginning, then and only then could there be room for a creator.
If God had a beginning only then could he have been created.
That brings up the question "why wasn't god created?"
If God had a beginning, then the question would be how did he
begin; or who or what caused him to come into being.
But from Jewish and Christian prospectives, God did not come
into existance, he always existed. Thus logically the question
is moot. He needed no creator.
===>That is why those "Jewish and Christian prospectives"
are illogical.
They claim that
- nothing can come into being without a "creator",
and that
- the more complex a thing or being is, the more it
requires a "creator",
yet they imagine a being that is complex enough to
create averything that exists, yet claim that that
particular being did not requuire a "creator".
Certainly makes no sense. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Wood" |
|
| Title: Re: God Could Not Have been Created(wasA SIMPLE GOD QUESTION) |
28 Dec 2006 01:25:30 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message
news:Spadnb7muK2TkQnYnZ2dnUVZ_qemnZ2d@comcast.com...
Dan Wood wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:nmc6p2hgeegmmlhi6h5q1m31e87bqj838f@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 11:17:12 -0500, "Dan Wood"
<drwood@bellsouth.net> let us all know that:
"Larry" <lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1167171920.551043.10700@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
duke wrote:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 16:29:05 -0500, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
Where is there ANY objective verifiable evidence that ANY real gods
exist?
The big bang.
Can it be that he does not exist except in the imaginations of
man???
ONly if you profess matter and energy created themselves.
Welcome to God almighty.
Who was created by an even more powerful God.
And that God was created by an even more powerful God.
And that God was created by an even more powerful God.And that God was
created by an even more powerful God.And that God was created by an
even more powerful God.And that God was created by an even more
powerful God.And that God was created by an even more powerful God.And
that God was created by an even more powerful God.And that God was
created by an even more powerful God.And that God was created by an
even more powerful God. etc.
You would have to ascribe to God something that theist do not.
You would have to say that God is transient, an ad interim being,
this is the opposite of eternal. No theist believes this.
Scientist until recient very recient history thought the Universe
was eternal, without a beginning. If the universe had no beginning,
then it could _not_ have been created. If otoh, the universe had a
beginning, then and only then could there be room for a creator.
If God had a beginning only then could he have been created.
That brings up the question "why wasn't god created?"
If God had a beginning, then the question would be how did he
begin; or who or what caused him to come into being.
But from Jewish and Christian prospectives, God did not come
into existance, he always existed. Thus logically the question
is moot. He needed no creator.
===>That is why those "Jewish and Christian prospectives"
are illogical. They claim that
- nothing can come into being without a "creator",
You keep saying nothing can _come_ into being.....
This misses the point. God did _NOT_ come into being:
he always existed, He is the eternal God, according to their
beliefs. which are based upon their Bible.
Regards,
Dan
and that - the more complex a thing or being is, the more it
requires a "creator",
yet they imagine a being that is complex enough to
create averything that exists, yet claim that that
particular being did not requuire a "creator".
Certainly makes no sense. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: God Could Not Have been Created(wasA SIMPLE GOD QUESTION) |
28 Dec 2006 02:12:26 PM |
|
|
"Dan Wood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> said:
<...>
===>That is why those "Jewish and Christian prospectives"
are illogical. They claim that
- nothing can come into being without a "creator",
You keep saying nothing can _come_ into being.....
This misses the point. God did _NOT_ come into being:
he always existed, He is the eternal God, according to their
beliefs. which are based upon their Bible.
I have some comments that I hope, are not seen as arguments against
the position you seem to be espousing.
First, you seem to be taking the role of "explainer" of other people's
beliefs. Whether you share those beliefs can be set aside, as far as I
am concerned, but the above response does suggest a certain amount of
"distancing" of yourself from them. Is there a reason for that? If so,
what is it?
Second, if you can, could you explain the concept of "eternal"
existence, that you think "their" beliefs involve? I have seen more
than one way to interpret this. Some seem more naive than others. In
particular, the idea that time as we know it had no beginning, and
extends into the past infinitely, and that a being existed therein.
and then at some point in time decided to act in a creative way,
poses certain problems I won't go into right now but that anyone can
find in the net, under the concept of actual versus potential
infinite. But another idea is that somehow, God exists "outside" time.
How this avoids problems, I don't know, and I don't know who actually
grasps this *and* believes it. At any rate, I ask that you explain
this in terms of "their" beliefs. C
Finally, would you describe who is the "they" in "their"? Do you think
your comments represent the beliefs of all persons of a certain
religion or group of religions? Do you think that all those persons
have thought out all the issues and that you are representing their
thought-out views? Or are you explaining a rationale that makes sense
of their belief, even though they might not have found this rationale?
Who *are* they?
As I said I am not offering counter arguments in this post, so don't
expect anything in the form of a "rebuttal"..
-- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Wood" |
|
| Title: Re: God Could Not Have been Created(wasA SIMPLE GOD QUESTION) |
28 Dec 2006 04:13:47 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:d488p2hj8it82j47viuhm8ijm931b9mrk7@4ax.com...
"Dan Wood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> said:
<...>
===>That is why those "Jewish and Christian prospectives"
are illogical. They claim that
- nothing can come into being without a "creator",
You keep saying nothing can _come_ into being.....
This misses the point. God did _NOT_ come into being:
he always existed, He is the eternal God, according to their
beliefs. which are based upon their Bible.
I have some comments that I hope, are not seen as arguments against
the position you seem to be espousing.
First, you seem to be taking the role of "explainer" of other people's
beliefs.
Only Christian and Jewish beliefs concerning God.
Whether you share those beliefs can be set aside, as far as I
am concerned, but the above response does suggest a certain amount of
"distancing" of yourself from them. Is there a reason for that? If so,
what is it?
Why does it matter?
Second, if you can, could you explain the concept of "eternal"
existence,
Ok, according to Judeo - Christian tridition God is from everlasting to
everlasting, God had no beginning and no end. This is based upon
their Bible.
that you think "their" beliefs involve? I have seen more
than one way to interpret this. Some seem more naive than others. In
particular, the idea that time as we know it had no beginning, and
extends into the past infinitely, and that a being existed therein.
and then at some point in time decided to act in a creative way,
poses certain problems I won't go into right now but that anyone can
find in the net, under the concept of actual versus potential
infinite. But another idea is that somehow, God exists "outside" time.
How this avoids problems, I don't know, and I don't know who actually
grasps this *and* believes it. At any rate, I ask that you explain
this in terms of "their" beliefs. C
Finally, would you describe who is the "they" in "their"? Do you think
your comments represent the beliefs of all persons of a certain
religion or group of religions?
The mainstream protestant and Catholic Churches and most Jews
Do you think that all those persons
have thought out all the issues and that you are representing their
thought-out views? Or are you explai | | | | | | |
