06 Apr 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou ignored the rest of his post, dj. He also said that it hasn't been shown that there is a creation. The existence of something doesn't make it a creation.
[b]The creation itself is clear evidence of a creator.
However, inasmuch as one must assume the presence of a creator to label it the creation, the argument becomes a matter of faith.
Seeing you state that the creation itself is evidence for a creator, do you not think it is blind faith the assume that that there is no creator?[/b]
06 Apr 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThanks K!
You ignored the rest of his post, dj. He also said that it hasn't been shown that there is a creation. The existence of something doesn't make it a creation.
The point of my comments are that your language structures the reality you perceive, and that this language (because of historical factors that we might go into if you like) assumes the reality you wish to examine. When you are trapped within a viewpoint, it is difficult to examine that viewpoint.
That's why we have philosophy, but our resident philosopher, bbarr, appears to find himself teaching Philosophy 99 here, as many posters are not yet ready for Philosophy 101.
sigh
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
06 Apr 05
Originally posted by WulebgrYou agree that philosophy exists, dont you? I bet you will agree that it was created, right? If so, then why don't you agree that an existing universe has not been created? Have you ever observed any existing thing that has not been created?
Thanks K!
The point of my comments are that your language structures the reality you perceive, and that this language (because of historical factors that we might go into if you like) assumes the reality you wish to examine. When you are trapped within a viewpoint, it is difficult to examine that viewpoint.
That's why we have philosophy, but our resid ...[text shortened]... mself teaching Philosophy 99 here, as many posters are not yet ready for Philosophy 101.
sigh
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
06 Apr 05
Originally posted by frogstomphow can matter create the space that held it?
how can matter create the space that held it? The hole was there first!
Matter did not create the space. The removal of matter created the space.
The hole was there first!
I'm afraid you are mistaken. The very fact that you see a hole is because it is surrounded by matter. To say the hole was there first does not make sense. Besides, where does the matter come from that defines the hole?
06 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckernope the space was there independent of matter. therefore the hole wasnt created , only the bounderies, and actually they were already there. the most you can say is thr removal of matter exposed the pre existing boundaries.
[b]how can matter create the space that held it?
Matter did not create the space. The removal of matter created the space.
The hole was there first!
I'm afraid you are mistaken. The very fact that you see a h ...[text shortened]... . Besides, where does the matter come from that defines the hole? [/b]
Wow that's more stuff that wasn't created
06 Apr 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhat he could have said was this:
No it can't, no there isn't, no they don't, and no you can't.
So what about these wise men, these Scholars, these brilliant debaters of this world's great affairs? God has made them all look foolish, and shown their wisdom to be useless nonsence. For God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never find God through human brilliance, and hten he stepped in and saved all those that believed his message, which the world calls foolish and crazy. It seems foolish to the Jews because they want a sign from heaven as proof that what is preached is truth; and it is foolish to the Gentiles because they believe only what agrees with their philosophy and seems wise to them. So when we preach about Christ dying to save them, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it is all nonsense. But God has opened the eyes of those called to savation, both Jews and Gentiles, to see that Christ is the mighty power of God to save them; Christ himself is the center of God's wise plan for their salvation. This so-called "foolish" plan of God is far wiser than the wisest plan of the wisest man, and God in his weakness- Christ dying on the cross- is far stronger than any man. 1 CORINTIANS 1:20-25
06 Apr 05
Originally posted by blindfaith101God certainly prefers fools and bumpkins: see how he has blessed George W.
What he could have said was this:
So what about these wise men, these Scholars, these brilliant debaters of this world's great affairs? God has made them all look foolish, and shown their wisdom to be useless nonsence. For God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never find God through human brilliance, and hten he stepped in and saved all t ...[text shortened]... his weakness- Christ dying on the cross- is far stronger than any man. 1 CORINTIANS 1:20-25
06 Apr 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerThe second sentence is tautological.
The laws of probability support the fact that Jesus Christ is the messiah. Thus you can know for sure who the creator is if you accept the Biblical account of creation.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by the first sentence? State some axioms for probability and use them to support the fact that JC is the Messiah.