06 Apr '05 22:02>
Originally posted by dj2beckerWhat a strange question coming from you, given that you think God can exist without being created.
Is there any good reason to believe that anything can exist without being created?
Originally posted by telerionNice. I am especially interested in how the field is demarcated.
[b]The laws of probability state that the chances of only 8 of the prophecies about Jesus coming true (written by different people during different times not knowing about each other and having no contact with each other) are one in 10 to the power 17.
OK dj, you want to discuss probabilities? Let's take even one prophecy and consider it [i]ex ant ...[text shortened]... mouth on this subject.
3) You should be more discerning about the sources you quote.
[/b]
Originally posted by telerionNicely done.
[b]The laws of probability state that the chances of only 8 of the prophecies about Jesus coming true (written by different people during different times not knowing about each other and having no contact with each other) are one in 10 to ...[text shortened]... should be more discerning about the sources you quote.
[/i]
Originally posted by frogstompnope the space was there independent of matter. therefore the hole wasnt created , only the bounderies...
nope 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.
Wow that's more stuff that wasn't created
Originally posted by telerionThanks for the post. I'll do some research on the subject and get back to you in due course.
[b]The laws of probability state that the chances of only 8 of the prophecies about Jesus coming true (written by different people during different times not knowing about each other and having no contact with each other) are one in 10 to the power 17.
OK dj, you want to discuss probabilities? Let's take even one prophecy and consider it [i]ex ant ...[text shortened]... mouth on this subject.
3) You should be more discerning about the sources you quote.
[/b]
Originally posted by dj2beckerAre you sure that's the definition of 'God' to you? I don't think you really mean that. Maybe you should amend your statement to read
The definition of "anything" is not "something everlasting". The definition of God is "an everlasting being", which means he has no beginning and no end.
Originally posted by dj2beckernope that's what you are saying,
[b]nope the space was there independent of matter. therefore the hole wasnt created , only the bounderies...
You are saying that the hole was not created but only the bounderies. The boundaries of the hole is the matter that defines the hole. Therefore you are saying that matter was created.
...the most you can say is thr rem ...[text shortened]... ated. So basically "nothing" can exist without being created. In that sense it makes sense. 🙂
Originally posted by frogstompMaybe if you read one of my previous posts you will see that my definition of God is not "nothing". Nothing can be created that is eternal. Which basically means you believe that in the beginning was a hole, whereas I believe in the beginning was God. Your "hole" requires a lot more faith, by the way...
nope that's what you are saying,
I'm saying the hole was already there
by your logic : either , god is nothing or doesn't exist , since only nothing csn exist without being created.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSo you agree it is a matter of faith? If so then do you believe that it is more likely for "nothing" to produce everything we see today?
Not particularly. However there's no good reason to believe that everything that exists must have been created either. There's no evidence either way.
Originally posted by dj2beckerI think it would be a matter of faith if anyone were to take a definite position about whether everything was created or whether some things were not created. I don't take either position. I acknowledge that I don't know.
So you agree it is a matter of faith? If so then do you believe that it is more likely for "nothing" to produce everything we see today?