| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"SJAB1958" |
| Date: |
15 Dec 2006 10:37:10 AM |
| Object: |
Truth or Lie? |
When one looks at the observable phenomena in the universe around us -
the facts as they are - it is natural to try and explain them.
In the past when humanity had very little knowledge, the attempts at
explanation were naturally rather limited, and because man could make
things with his (or her) hands, then it was assumed that something else
far greater than ourselves, must have made everything else.
As humanity has progressed in knowledge, it is becoming evident that
while things can form spontaneously, it is unlikely that someone or
something else is responsible for making those things.
Yet there are some that believe the opposite, despite the evidence that
reveals the actual truth.
And they keep on denying the facts, ignoring the facts, and sometimes
distorting the facts, so that they can keep on presenting their
worldview as the only truth.
Yet what evidence do they present for their worldview? One book, made
of many books, written by many different hands over many hundreds of
years, and what does it contain?
Nothing more than the written versions of countless oral traditions,
myths, legends and other such things.
When are those people going to realise that they cannot hold onto the
past.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Lie? |
15 Dec 2006 11:35:57 AM |
|
|
Friend, you have eyes, but you do not see. As man has progressed it
has become increasingly clear that there must have been a creator. The
complexity of the world alone is enough reason. However I present to
you one question that I challenge you to answer in all honesty: Why is
there something rather than nothing?
This question has deeply profound implications, both explicit and
implicit. Answer that initial, the move on from there. I look forward
to hearing from you again.
SJAB1958 wrote:
When one looks at the observable phenomena in the universe around us -
the facts as they are - it is natural to try and explain them.
In the past when humanity had very little knowledge, the attempts at
explanation were naturally rather limited, and because man could make
things with his (or her) hands, then it was assumed that something else
far greater than ourselves, must have made everything else.
As humanity has progressed in knowledge, it is becoming evident that
while things can form spontaneously, it is unlikely that someone or
something else is responsible for making those things.
Yet there are some that believe the opposite, despite the evidence that
reveals the actual truth.
And they keep on denying the facts, ignoring the facts, and sometimes
distorting the facts, so that they can keep on presenting their
worldview as the only truth.
Yet what evidence do they present for their worldview? One book, made
of many books, written by many different hands over many hundreds of
years, and what does it contain?
Nothing more than the written versions of countless oral traditions,
myths, legends and other such things.
When are those people going to realise that they cannot hold onto the
past.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darkwing" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Lie? |
15 Dec 2006 05:07:29 PM |
|
|
<derrekarce@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166204157.887431.5500@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Friend, you have eyes, but you do not see. As man has progressed it
has become increasingly clear that there must have been a creator. The
complexity of the world alone is enough reason.
Wow, you're to stoopid to figure out how the Universe works so we all should
just stay ignorant? You know your computer is pretty sophisticated as well,
I bet a miracle created that thing to.
However I present to
you one question that I challenge you to answer in all honesty: Why is
there something rather than nothing?
If there was nothing then we wouldn't be here arguing about it, I doubt it
is anymore complicated than that.
------------------------------------
DW
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Lie? |
15 Dec 2006 12:19:42 PM |
|
|
je napisal:
However I present to
you one question that I challenge you to answer in all honesty: Why is
there something rather than nothing?
This question has deeply profound implications, both explicit and
implicit. Answer that initial, the move on from there. I look forward
to hearing from you again.
Parmenides said it is because "nothing" can't exist. And I acctually
find it quite logical.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Lie? |
16 Dec 2006 01:20:23 PM |
|
|
From: "artoart...@gmail.com" <artoart...@gmail.com>
Parmenides said it is because "nothing" can't exist. And I
acctually [sic] find it quite logical.
It's not logical at all. It's a stupid word trick for fooling
stupid minds like yours. It's a confusion between two different
statements:
-1- It is not true that there exists something.
-2- There exists something which does not exist.
Note that -2- is absurd, which is all that Parmenides showed.
He didn't show anything wrong with -1-.
We know -1- to be false, but only by observation, not by logic.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CreateThis" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Lie? |
15 Dec 2006 12:34:07 PM |
|
|
On 15 Dec 2006 10:19:42 -0800, "artoartnik@gmail.com"
<artoartnik@gmail.com> wrote:
derrekarce@gmail.com je napisal:
However I present to
you one question that I challenge you to answer in all honesty: Why is
there something rather than nothing?
This question has deeply profound implications, both explicit and
implicit. Answer that initial, the move on from there. I look forward
to hearing from you again.
Parmenides said it is because "nothing" can't exist.
Maybe something/nothing are simply the two sides of our
all-too-humanly dichotomous concept of "existence". Maybe there's
really only one side, or three. Or none.
Maybe I need another cup of coffee...
CT
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lee Oswald Ving" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Lie? |
15 Dec 2006 12:22:36 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:1166204157.887431.5500@
79g2000cws.googlegroups.com:
Friend, you have eyes, but you do not see. As man has progressed it
has become increasingly clear that there must have been a creator. The
complexity of the world alone is enough reason.
Why are you so impressed by complexity? It's a sign of disorder, not the
other way around.
However I present to
you one question that I challenge you to answer in all honesty: Why is
there something rather than nothing?
I have no idea. Neither do you.
Keep trying to tell me otherwise is simply dishonest, and I don't
appreciate it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Lie? |
16 Dec 2006 12:24:02 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Friend, you have eyes, but you do not see. As man has progressed it
has become increasingly clear that there must have been a creator.
nonsense, only in the mind of primitives
The
complexity of the world alone is enough reason.
Garbage
However I present to
you one question that I challenge you to answer in all honesty: Why is
there something rather than nothing?
easy - if there were nothing you would not be here making profoundly silly
statements
This question has deeply profound implications, both explicit and
implicit. Answer that initial, the move on from there. I look forward
to hearing from you again.
SJAB1958 wrote:
When one looks at the observable phenomena in the universe around us -
the facts as they are - it is natural to try and explain them.
In the past when humanity had very little knowledge, the attempts at
explanation were naturally rather limited, and because man could make
things with his (or her) hands, then it was assumed that something else
far greater than ourselves, must have made everything else.
As humanity has progressed in knowledge, it is becoming evident that
while things can form spontaneously, it is unlikely that someone or
something else is responsible for making those things.
Yet there are some that believe the opposite, despite the evidence that
reveals the actual truth.
And they keep on denying the facts, ignoring the facts, and sometimes
distorting the facts, so that they can keep on presenting their
worldview as the only truth.
Yet what evidence do they present for their worldview? One book, made
of many books, written by many different hands over many hundreds of
years, and what does it contain?
Nothing more than the written versions of countless oral traditions,
myths, legends and other such things.
When are those people going to realise that they cannot hold onto the
past.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Icarus" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Lie? |
15 Dec 2006 12:11:33 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Friend, you have eyes, but you do not see. As man has progressed it
has become increasingly clear that there must have been a creator.
The complexity of the world alone is enough reason.
If the complexity is sourced in a creator, where did it come from before
that?
However I
present to you one question that I challenge you to answer in all
honesty: Why is there something rather than nothing?
Perhaps because 'nothing' is a purely human concept which cannot exist in
reality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Lie? |
16 Dec 2006 01:08:41 PM |
|
|
From: "Icarus" <icarus...@email.com>
However I
present to you one question that I challenge you to answer in all
honesty: Why is there something rather than nothing?
Perhaps because 'nothing' is a purely human concept which cannot
exist in reality.
Why can't it?? There's nothing contradictory about 'nothing' reality.
There's even a mathematical model for it:
The *null* theory:
There are no objects.
There are no true sentences.
There are no valid derivations.
There isn't even a grammar for forming sentences or derivations.
We know from observation that the real universe isn't like that.
But why?? It's not self-contradictory, so it *could* have been that
way, i.e. nothing at all ever. Why this way with non-null universe??
Why does reality have to be non-null???
I don't believe you know why.
I don't believe anyone knows why.
I don't believe it's even possible to know why.
I'm not even sure a why is possible!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Icarus" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Lie? |
17 Dec 2006 07:09:24 PM |
|
|
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
From: "Icarus" <icarus...@email.com>
However I
present to you one question that I challenge you to answer
in all honesty: Why is there something rather than nothing?
Perhaps because 'nothing' is a purely human concept which
cannot exist in reality.
Why can't it?? There's nothing contradictory about 'nothing'
reality. There's even a mathematical model for it:
The *null* theory:
There are no objects.
There are no true sentences.
There are no valid derivations.
There isn't even a grammar for forming sentences or
derivations.
We know from observation that the real universe isn't like
that.
But why?? It's not self-contradictory, so it *could* have been
that way, i.e. nothing at all ever. Why this way with non-null
universe?? Why does reality have to be non-null???
I have no idea.
I don't believe you know why.
You're absolutely right.
I don't believe anyone knows why.
I don't believe it's even possible to know why.
I'm not even sure a why is possible!
You may well be right on that too! :-)
The one thing I would say is that if the physicists are right, then
everything - even existence itself - is a matter of probability, not
determinism. Given that, a state of complete nothingness would be
impossible because it would be completely determined. It seems that in
reality you can't just have a completely empty space because there would
always be a finite probability of something existing within it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Lie? |
18 Dec 2006 06:50:14 PM |
|
|
From: "Icarus" <icarus...@email.com>
The one thing I would say is that if the physicists are right,
then everything - even existence itself - is a matter of
probability, not determinism.
Which of course begs the question why everything would be a matter
of probability, instead of a matter of determinism, or nothing at
all. There's no way, with no premises whatsoever, and no magic
rules of logic, to prove anything, even a system of probability,
*must* exist. So it's a mystery why it does. It's only because we
observe that we know there's anything, but that's not an
explanation why.
Given that, a state of complete nothingness would be impossible
because it would be completely determined.
Only with the a priori assumption that there must be some
probability system in the first place.
It seems that in reality you can't just have a completely empty
space because there would always be a finite probability of
something existing within it.
Ditto.
Explaining why there's anything by that argument merely regresses
one level deeper into the mystery why there should be any finite
(nonzero) probability of something existing.
"why" questions can be answered in the context of a model. For
example, an object follows an orbit around a larger orbit because:
- Major premise: Newton's laws of motion and gravity are near-correct.
- Minor premise: The first object is near the second object, moving
laterally with respect to it, with less energy than sufficient
to escape, but with sufficient lateral momentum to avoid collision.
For specific questions like that, both the major premise (the
model) and the minor premise (the specifics of the particular
situation) are necessary. For more general questions like why it's
possible for some objects to orbit other objects, the major premise
may be sufficient. But without *any* premise, nothing can be proven
except mathematical tautologies, and nothing in reality can be
explained.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Lie? |
18 Dec 2006 11:20:02 PM |
|
|
"Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t" wrote:
From: "Icarus" <icarus...@email.com>
The one thing I would say is that if the physicists are right,
then everything - even existence itself - is a matter of
probability, not determinism.
Which of course begs the question why everything would be a matter
of probability, instead of a matter of determinism, or nothing at
all. There's no way, with no premises whatsoever, and no magic
rules of logic, to prove anything, even a system of probability,
*must* exist. So it's a mystery why it does. It's only because we
observe that we know there's anything, but that's not an
explanation why.
Never mind, when the last of the homo sapien species dies out, as it
surely will, there will then be nothing alive left capable of asking
these kind of questions - simplicity will return.
Of course the Chimps may, after a million or so years, learn a simple
language - then WATCH OUT
For the first chimp gods .............................looking remarkably
chimplike
Given that, a state of complete nothingness would be impossible
because it would be completely determined.
Only with the a priori assumption that there must be some
probability system in the first place.
It seems that in reality you can't just have a completely empty
space because there would always be a finite probability of
something existing within it.
Ditto.
Explaining why there's anything by that argument merely regresses
one level deeper into the mystery why there should be any finite
(nonzero) probability of something existing.
"why" questions can be answered in the context of a model. For
example, an object follows an orbit around a larger orbit because:
- Major premise: Newton's laws of motion and gravity are near-correct.
- Minor premise: The first object is near the second object, moving
laterally with respect to it, with less energy than sufficient
to escape, but with sufficient lateral momentum to avoid collision.
For specific questions like that, both the major premise (the
model) and the minor premise (the specifics of the particular
situation) are necessary. For more general questions like why it's
possible for some objects to orbit other objects, the major premise
may be sufficient. But without *any* premise, nothing can be proven
except mathematical tautologies, and nothing in reality can be
explained.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Icarus" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Lie? |
19 Dec 2006 08:30:20 PM |
|
|
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
From: "Icarus" <icarus...@email.com>
The one thing I would say is that if the physicists are right,
then everything - even existence itself - is a matter of
probability, not determinism.
Which of course begs the question why everything would be a
matter
of probability, instead of a matter of determinism, or nothing
at all. There's no way, with no premises whatsoever, and no
magic
rules of logic, to prove anything, even a system of
probability, *must* exist. So it's a mystery why it does. It's
only because we observe that we know there's anything, but
that's not an
explanation why.
Given that, a state of complete nothingness would be
impossible because it would be completely determined.
Only with the a priori assumption that there must be some
probability system in the first place.
It seems that in reality you can't just have a completely
empty space because there would always be a finite
probability of something existing within it.
Ditto.
Explaining why there's anything by that argument merely
regresses
one level deeper into the mystery why there should be any
finite (nonzero) probability of something existing.
"why" questions can be answered in the context of a model. For
example, an object follows an orbit around a larger orbit
because:
- Major premise: Newton's laws of motion and gravity are
near-correct.
- Minor premise: The first object is near the second object,
moving laterally with respect to it, with less energy than
sufficient to escape, but with sufficient lateral momentum
to avoid collision. For specific questions like that, both the
major premise (the
model) and the minor premise (the specifics of the particular
situation) are necessary. For more general questions like why
it's possible for some objects to orbit other objects, the
major premise may be sufficient. But without *any* premise,
nothing can be proven except mathematical tautologies, and
nothing in reality can be explained.
Agreed. It's a headache, isn't it? :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Lie? |
18 Dec 2006 11:16:02 PM |
|
|
Icarus wrote:
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
From: "Icarus" <icarus...@email.com>
However I
present to you one question that I challenge you to answer
in all honesty: Why is there something rather than nothing?
Perhaps because 'nothing' is a purely human concept which
cannot exist in reality.
Why can't it?? There's nothing contradictory about 'nothing'
reality. There's even a mathematical model for it:
The *null* theory:
There are no objects.
There are no true sentences.
There are no valid derivations.
There isn't even a grammar for forming sentences or
derivations.
We know from observation that the real universe isn't like
that.
But why?? It's not self-contradictory, so it *could* have been
that way, i.e. nothing at all ever. Why this way with non-null
universe?? Why does reality have to be non-null???
I have no idea.
I don't believe you know why.
You're absolutely right.
I don't believe anyone knows why.
I don't believe it's even possible to know why.
I'm not even sure a why is possible!
You may well be right on that too! :-)
The one thing I would say is that if the physicists are right, then
everything - even existence itself - is a matter of probability,
Agreed - well confirmed by 'quirks' of nature such as crippled human
beings, animals with extra legs and human fetus that arrive so deformed the
parents are never allowed to see them. Of course this list is endless, but
just a few for starters.
Bob
not
determinism. Given that, a state of complete nothingness would be
impossible because it would be completely determined. It seems that in
reality you can't just have a completely empty space because there would
always be a finite probability of something existing within it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Lie? |
15 Dec 2006 05:45:43 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 18:11:33 -0000, "Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote:
If the complexity is sourced in a creator, where did it come from before
that?
Nobody knows that.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Icarus" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Lie? |
15 Dec 2006 07:20:34 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 18:11:33 -0000, "Icarus"
<icarus_uk@email.com> wrote:
If the complexity is sourced in a creator, where did it come
from before that?
Nobody knows that.
Let's suppose complexity requires a creator, as
suggests - The logical consequence would be an infinite regression of
creators (since any complexity sourced in an uncreated creator would
violate the premise). Since an infinite regression of creators seems
untenable, the premise must be false - complexity does not require a
creator.
Now, the theist would just argue that uncreated complexity just means a god
who is, was and always will be in existence. However, if complexity
doesn't require a creator then there is no need to invoke the existence of
one in the first place.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Lie? |
15 Dec 2006 02:56:16 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Friend, you have eyes, but you do not see. As man has progressed it
has become increasingly clear that there must have been a creator. The
complexity of the world alone is enough reason.
So what created the creator?
However I present to
you one question that I challenge you to answer in all honesty: Why is
there something rather than nothing?
Why not?
This question has deeply profound implications, both explicit and
implicit.
No, it's actually pretty silly. If there was nothing, we wouldn't be
having this discussion.
Answer that initial, the move on from there. I look forward
to hearing from you again.
First you answer the question about what created the creator.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Lie? |
15 Dec 2006 07:25:04 PM |
|
|
First you answer the question about what created the creator.
The answer is, nobody created the Creator. God claims to have created
all things, including time. Since he created time, he must exist
outside of it, and would therefore not be bound by it. Something that
exists outside of time is infinite, as opposed to finite, correct? If
something is infinite, it has no beginning or end, and therefore would
need no creator. Finite things, such as the universe and humans, would
need a creator so as not to contradict causality. Causality would not
apply to an infinite being.
(Yes I said the universe is finite, as modern science has shown it to
be. It's something even evolutionists and atheists cannot deny.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Lie? |
16 Dec 2006 05:13:20 PM |
|
|
From: "Steve" <steveluett...@aol.com>
God claims to have created all things, including time.
There is no such thing who claimed any such thing, except charlatans.
Even the Bible doesn't say that. It says God created the heaven and
the earth, that's all, nothing about the rest of the universe
(except the Sun and Moon), no mention of creating time.
And of course there's no evidence of such either.
So what is your source if not Bible nor evidence??
Some ancient Greek philosopher said such and you take it on faith??
Those Greek philosophers had some bright ideas, and some dumb ideas.
Or did St. Thomas Aquinas say that, claiming to speak for God??
Finite things, such as the universe and humans, would need a
creator so as not to contradict causality.
Why do you think they would need one?
Why do you think a creator would be sufficient?
Why do you believe causality is an absolute never-violated truth?
An atom of a radioactive isotope sits unchanged (except for
exchange of orbiting electrons from time to time) for over three
billion years since it was formed by a cosmic ray bombardment of a
stable isotype of another element. Suddenly on February 29th, 2000,
at 4:27:19.6438 UT, it decays. What is the cause of that specific
decay at that specific time? Why didn't it decay sooner? Other
copies of exactly that same radioactive isotope have been decaying
all along over that 3+ billion years, but this didn't, why? Why
didn't it wait longer? Other copies of exactly that same
radioactive isotope remain undecayed to this very day, but this one
didn't, it decayed already, why?
Causality would not apply to an infinite being.
Why not???
At this point I know you're just making up things for no reason
except to impress idiots that you sound smarter than they are.
You should strive a little higher, if you can.
(Hmm, that's an awfully big "if"!)
I said the universe is finite, as modern science has shown it to be.
What, you read somebody's pet theory, where he said that, and you
believed it had been conclusively shown to be true, and that all
other scientists agree? You need to read a wider variety of
scientific papers. At present it isn't yet known whether the
Universe is finite (in size) or not. Some people think one thing
and others think another, but nobody really knows for sure. You
should stick to things which have been established beyond all
reasonable doubt, such as common descent of biological evolution,
or special relativity, or Hubble expansion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Lie? |
15 Dec 2006 08:51:14 PM |
|
|
On 15 Dec 2006 17:25:04 -0800, in talk.origins
"Steve" <steveluetters@aol.com> wrote in
<1166232304.520932.141330@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
First you answer the question about what created the creator.
The answer is, nobody created the Creator. God claims to have created
all things, including time.
There is no evidence that there are any gods or that any of them have
ever made any claims at all. It is quite presumptuous of you to put
words into "God's" mouth to give them an air of authority.
Since he created time, he must exist
outside of it, and would therefore not be bound by it. Something that
exists outside of time is infinite, as opposed to finite, correct? If
something is infinite, it has no beginning or end, and therefore would
need no creator. Finite things, such as the universe and humans, would
need a creator so as not to contradict causality. Causality would not
apply to an infinite being.
(Yes I said the universe is finite, as modern science has shown it to
be. It's something even evolutionists and atheists cannot deny.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Lie? |
15 Dec 2006 09:17:39 PM |
|
|
Steve wrote:
First you answer the question about what created the creator.
The answer is, nobody created the Creator.
Did you know that there are hypotheses which postulate a higher
dimensional universe, greater in some sense than the one we dwell in?
But there may be no way to see it. We don't yet know if this is a
testable idea.
God claims to have created
all things, including time.
Well, *people have claimed that he said that. Other people have said
that Jesus was a prophet but not divine. Other people have said that
Jesus was just one of many avatars - god manifesting in the flesh.
Other people say there are many gods. Rather hard to choose one of
these over another. If they are all true in some metaphorical sense,
then there should be no conflict with any of these myths and science.
If you interpret the myths literally, then they all fly in the face of
observable facts, and there is no reliable way to choose among them.
Since he created time, he must exist
outside of it, and would therefore not be bound by it.
Could you show the math for that? Or the physics?
Something that
exists outside of time is infinite, as opposed to finite, correct?
I don't know what "outside of time" means. It may mean something, but I
am neither mathematician nor physicist.
If
something is infinite, it has no beginning or end, and therefore would
need no creator. Finite things, such as the universe and humans, would
need a creator so as not to contradict causality. Causality would not
apply to an infinite being.
We don't know if causality applies to the universe as a whole. We know
that it doesn't apply to everything *in the universe. If there is a
greater universe, it would need no creator.
(Yes I said the universe is finite, as modern science has shown it to
be.
It's the most common opinion, but not universally held.
It's something even evolutionists and atheists cannot deny.)
Thank you for not claiming evolutionists and atheists are the same.
Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wf3h" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Lie? |
15 Dec 2006 10:46:24 PM |
|
|
Steve wrote:
First you answer the question about what created the creator.
The answer is, nobody created the Creator. God claims to have created
all things, including time. Since he created time, he must exist
outside of it, and would therefore not be bound by it. Something that
exists outside of time is infinite, as opposed to finite, correct? If
something is infinite, it has no beginning or end, and therefore would
need no creator. Finite things, such as the universe and humans, would
need a creator so as not to contradict causality. Causality would not
apply to an infinite being.
(Yes I said the universe is finite, as modern science has shown it to
be. It's something even evolutionists and atheists cannot deny.)
i love the inherent contradiction....science shows the universe to be
finite but science is a lie because it supports evolution, so science
is true....
such is creationist logic...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Lie? |
16 Dec 2006 08:34:38 AM |
|
|
i love the inherent contradiction....science shows the universe to be
finite but science is a lie because it supports evolution, so science
is true....
Are you of the opinion that all science or no science must be accepted?
Either everything science supports is correct or everything it
supports is incorrect? Is it possible to not believe in evolution but
still believe in things that are testable and verifiable?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Lie? |
16 Dec 2006 05:55:22 PM |
|
|
From: "Steve" <steveluett...@aol.com>
Is it possible to not believe in evolution but still believe in
things that are testable and verifiable?
Do you mean just some things t&v but disbelieve in other things t&v?
Or do you mean still believe in *all* things t&v?
If you mean the later, then no, not possible, because evolution
(and common descent) are t&v, and in fact have already been tested
and verified. For example, based on anatomical similarities, it was
conjectured that apes and monkeys have a common ancestor, and that
humans are apes. On that basis it was predicted that humans would
have DNA more similar to those of other apes
(Chimp/Gorilla/Orangutan) than to monkeys. Sure enough, that
prediction has been verified. There was some doubt which of those
three apes would have DNA most similar to human, and the winner
turned out to be Chimps. Furthermore it was discovered that there
are actually two different species of Chimps, more closely related
to each other than either is to humans. Since evolution (and common
descent) have been tested and verified, it's logically inconsistent
(hence impossible) to believe in all t&v but not evolution.
Note I'm not claiming *universal* common descent. To prove UCD
would require reading the genomes of *every* species there is,
which is a long way off. But so-far UCD looks valid back to the
origin of the three domains of prokaryotes, one of which evolved to
become the nucleus of eukaryotes, all sister clades within that
domain going extinct since that event, but earlier than that it's
not demonstrated except in a general (statistical) way. Most of the
essential genes exist in all three domains, but there are still a
few essential genes that haven't yet been matched in all three, and
several non-essential genes that seem to occur *only* in one or
another domain.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ernest Major" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Lie? |
16 Dec 2006 01:12:34 PM |
|
|
In message <1166279678.852278.77410@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>, Steve
<steveluetters@aol.com> writes
i love the inherent contradiction....science shows the universe to be
finite but science is a lie because it supports evolution, so science
is true....
Are you of the opinion that all science or no science must be accepted?
Either everything science supports is correct or everything it
supports is incorrect? Is it possible to not believe in evolution but
still believe in things that are testable and verifiable?
No - because evolution is testable and verifiable.
--
alias Ernest Major
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob pease" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Lie? |
16 Dec 2006 09:43:47 AM |
|
|
Steve <steveluetters@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1166279678.852278.77410@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
i love the inherent contradiction....science shows the universe to be
finite but science is a lie because it supports evolution, so science
is true....
Are you of the opinion that all science or no science must be accepted?
Either everything science supports is correct or everything it
supports is incorrect? Is it possible to not believe in evolution but
still believe in things that are testable and verifiable?
It's possible to believe anything you want to.
It's not HONEST to make up your own rules and call it "Science"
RJ Pease
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wf3h" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Lie? |
16 Dec 2006 01:33:08 PM |
|
|
Steve wrote:
i love the inherent contradiction....science shows the universe to be
finite but science is a lie because it supports evolution, so science
is true....
Are you of the opinion that all science or no science must be accepted?
i am of the opinion that science is a method. to say that science is
corrupt because it disagrees with an arbitrary religious belief is
irrantional. a method may or may not achieve its objective, but the
natural world exists. that's a fact. and science is a way of
investigating it.
'accepting' it is a non sequitur.
Either everything science supports is correct or everything it
supports is incorrect? Is it possible to not believe in evolution but
still believe in things that are testable and verifiable?
a contradiction. evolution is testable and verifiable. as i stated,
science is method. evolution incorporates this method just as physics
does.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Lie? |
16 Dec 2006 01:55:39 PM |
|
|
From: "skyeyes" <skye...@dakotacom.net>
If there was nothing, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
That's the weak anthropic principle. But here it begs the question.
Obviously we're having this discussion, which is possible only if
there is something. But the question was why is there anything, and
you've merely "reduced" that question to an actually more
complicated question "why are we having this discussion", which is
the wrong direction if you're trying to explain why there is
something instead of nothing. My argument against your
"explanation" here is rather like Dawkins' argument against a
supernatural being with all sorts of powers as an explanation for
the Big Bang. A supernatural being with all those powers is more
complicated than the Big Bang itself, so it goes the wrong way.
It's simpler to just posit the Big Bang instead of positing a
supernatural being who created himself or always existed but then
suddenly at one moment decided it's time for the Big Bang. Likewise
it's simpler to just posit that something exists, than to posit
this discussion plus the weak anthropic principle as an explanation
why something exists.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Baron Bodissey" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Lie? |
16 Dec 2006 04:29:05 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Friend, you have eyes, but you do not see. As man has progressed it
has become increasingly clear that there must have been a creator. The
complexity of the world alone is enough reason. However I present to
you one question that I challenge you to answer in all honesty: Why is
there something rather than nothing?
Because ***** happens?
This question has deeply profound implications, both explicit and
implicit. Answer that initial, the move on from there. I look forward
to hearing from you again.
You need God to put purpose in your life? How pitiful.
<snip>
Baron Bodissey
We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the
culture.
- Rev. Ray Mummert, Dover, PA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Lie? |
15 Dec 2006 04:53:38 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Friend, you have eyes, but you do not see. As man has progressed it
has become increasingly clear that there must have been a creator. The
complexity of the world alone is enough reason. However I present to
you one question that I challenge you to answer in all honesty: Why is
there something rather than nothing?
Sometimes the correct answer is "I don't know."
This question has deeply profound implications, both explicit and
implicit. Answer that initial, the move on from there. I look forward
to hearing from you again.
Creationism of a sort (a god is why there is something rather than
nothing) may be true, altho smarter men and women than you and I have
wracked their brains trying to support it with evidence or reason.
Many scientists (perhaps half in the US) are of that opinion, but they
don't try to convert their skeptical comrades simply because there is
no verifiable evidence.
In the meanwhile, you might think of science as studying how
Yahweh/Brahma/et al does things. Evolution is the way he created the
species we see around us. Denying that - as Duke always does - is to
insist that the world is by nature unknowable, and we cannot trust the
evidence of our senses. If the handiwork of a creator God cannot be
trusted, how can we claim to know anything? Mainstream evolutionary
theory is the only testable model that fits the facts.
One can do perfectly good science and be a theist. but if one starts
denying evidence because it doesn't fit a preconceived world view, then
one is not doing science, and one is denying the creator's work in
order to cling to an image carved in imagination. And *that is
idolatry.
SJAB1958 wrote:
When one looks at the observable phenomena in the universe around us -
the facts as they are - it is natural to try and explain them.
In the past when humanity had very little knowledge, the attempts at
explanation were naturally rather limited, and because man could make
things with his (or her) hands, then it was assumed that something else
far greater than ourselves, must have made everything else.
As humanity has progressed in knowledge, it is becoming evident that
while things can form spontaneously, it is unlikely that someone or
something else is responsible for making those things.
Yet there are some that believe the opposite, despite the evidence that
reveals the actual truth.
And they keep on denying the facts, ignoring the facts, and sometimes
distorting the facts, so that they can keep on presenting their
worldview as the only truth.
Yet what evidence do they present for their worldview? One book, made
of many books, written by many different hands over many hundreds of
years, and what does it contain?
Nothing more than the written versions of countless oral traditions,
myths, legends and other such things.
When are those people going to realise that they cannot hold onto the
past.
Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
