Originally posted by frogstomp the universe is pretty flat . though it's more curved than god would have to be.
God would have to be perfectly flat,, looks like I answered my own question. thanks anyways guys.
How could God be both within the universe and claim to have made it? Looks like you answered your own premisely impossible question, yes. Great job.
Originally posted by dj2becker CS Lewis said,
[b]
"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of ...[text shortened]... we trust the rules for logic that have been set out by men whose thoughts are mere accidents?
Originally posted by Darfius You're right, anything restricted to this dimension of time is onconceivable. However, God claims to be in at least two dimensions of time. Why could He not have created the universe? Indeed, it is up to you to provide a better theory or--emplying the scientific method--we must embrace the best theory we have at the moment. And God is a lot better than "we don't know."
No, it's not. It doesn't help explain anything to say the Big Bang was caused by something else because then the natural question is "what caused the cause?"
You are making statements about what God says and claims, but this assumes he exists, which is in doubt in this debate. The Bible may claim God claimed something, or a Christian may say God said something, but this doesn't mean God said or claimed anything. I dispute that God is the author of the Bible or the source of any coincidental experiences or strong emotions people might feel.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung No, it's not. It doesn't help explain anything to say the Big Bang was caused by something else because then the natural question is "what caused the cause?"
You are making statements about what God says and claims, but this assumes he exists, which is in doubt in this debate. The Bible may claim God claimed something, or a Christian may say G ...[text shortened]... of the Bible or the source of any coincidental experiences or strong emotions people might feel.
Originally posted by Darfius You're right, anything restricted to this dimension of time is onconceivable. However, God claims to be in at least two dimensions of time. Why could He not have created the universe? Indeed, it is up to you to provide a better theory or--emplying the scientific method--we must embrace the best theory we have at the moment. And God is a lot better than "we don't know."
This is totally spurious. God is not part of any tested scientific theory. However, there are cosmological models of the universe which are a bit more useful than 'We don't know'.
Originally posted by royalchicken This is totally spurious. God is not part of any tested scientific theory. However, there are cosmological models of the universe which are a bit more useful than 'We don't know'.
I'd like to hear about them, rather than hear of them, please.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung That which helps an organism survive and reproduce remains in the gene pool and proliferates. Those random events which are detrimental to this end disappear from the gene pool. Happiness and pleasure as well as pain and suffering are consequences of those activities and qualities which work towards the end (or against, in the case of pain and suffe ...[text shortened]... hich brings happiness and avoids pain, I trust it. It is something that brings me what I value.
How do you know this? Has it ever been observed or is it simply a theory?
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole What do you mean by "logic" here? Give me an example of a case where logic is trusted, preferably with both a good and a bad outcome.
With "logic" I am refering to the way in which your brain is used to process information as well as your thought patterns. I have already given the example that CS Lewis made, but I'll repeat it because it seems nobody took note of it.
"‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.
11 Mar '05 17:25
Random logic?
Back to Top