Originally posted by dj2beckerIf God is defined as that which does not have a beginning (among other characteristics) then there is no reason to believe he exists.
If God created all things, then…
Where did God come from?
Think about this…
A bachelor by definition does not have a wife.
Likewise, God by definition does not have a beginning.
Therefore, to ask the question, “Where did God come from?”
…is no different than asking, “Who is the bachelor’s wife?”
Wouldn’t you agree?
A more appropriat ...[text shortened]... and the firmament showeth his handiwork.” Psalm 19:1
See:http://www.logicalfaith.org/from.htm
You say this is a basic truth:
“NOTHING comes from NOTHING”
As God is supposedly something, he cannot have come from nothing according to your basic truth.
The fact that something does exist, shows us that someone or something must have always existed.
Or there was an infintely long chain of causes going back infinitely far.
That which has always existed must be the one that created everything else.
Not necessarily.
You're lucky I put in any time for another post you copied from someone's website.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI case you don't know, some Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God, and the source of all truth. And thus we believe that Science only makes sense if taken in perspective with the Bible.
I love how some Christians pick and choose when they want to invoke particular scientific theories as evidence of their metaphysical beliefs, yet reject other scientific theories that are the product of the very same method as those that are invoked. It's a never ending source of amusement.
Seriously, it cracks me up. Apply the Laws of Thermo ...[text shortened]... ame methodology of acquiring understanding, and that none of them have metaphysical application.
In case you didn't know, the Scientific method was developed by a Bible believing Christian. The Bible in not a science textbook, but where the Bible speaks on science it is 100% accurate.
Btw: Maybe you should ask yourself the question, why do the Laws of Thermodynamics, which are in total agreement with the Bible not have any opposition; but the TOE which is in direct contradiction with the Bible, has soooo many holes punched through it...
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou are the very epitome of a brainwashed cult member. No matter how many times your erroneous statements are pointed out to you, you persist in posting this nonsense. It's painful to watch. I'm almost embarassed for you...
I case you don't know, some Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God, and the source of all truth. And thus we believe that Science only makes sense if taken in perspective with the Bible.
In case you didn't know, the Scientific method was developed by a Bible believing Christian. The Bible in not a science textbook, but where the Bible sp ...[text shortened]... TOE which is in direct contradiction with the Bible, has soooo many holes punched through it...
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThere are none. How else could it be 100% accurate.
Cite some portions that you think speak on science.
Oh wait, I misspoke in my haste. In the original Hebrew Genesis 1:1-2 associates life and breath--pure science, and true. Indeed, this should be the starting point, and the only valid proof text for the argument about abortion, but most xtians refuse to accept this little bit of science.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by David CI would not be too quick to speak about being brainwashed if I were you...
You are the very epitome of a brainwashed cult member. No matter how many times your erroneous statements are pointed out to you, you persist in posting this nonsense. It's painful to watch. I'm almost embarassed for you...
I know it is easier to dismiss the idea that God exists without any thought whatsoever. Besides, then you can do what you want to. You can be your own boss. But believe me, the day you die and realise that you were wrong you will kick yourself throughout eternity for rejecting God.
Last question: Do you even know what a cult is?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThat my friend is not science as it is based on the assumption that matter is eternal.
It has been shown numerous times that that website doesn't understand the Laws of Thermodynamics at all (which are certainly NOT the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences). There is no reason why a cyclical universe that expanded for a time following a Big Bang couldn't contract back into a singularity over time and then have another Big Bang ad infinitum.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
2 edits
Posted by ATYIf God is defined as that which does not have a beginning (among other characteristics) then there is no reason to believe he exists.
No. That simply means He is eternal.
As God is supposedly something, he cannot have come from nothing according to your basic truth.
That is exactly why He is eternal.
Or there was an infintely long chain of causes going back infinitely far.
How would this be more credible than saying God is eternal?
Not necessarily.
So you are saying that nothing can create something?
Originally posted by dj2beckerI read that page and observed a long list of passages that refer to common human observations of their surroundings in order to make spiritual points. None of the passages cited purport to offer information regarding science. Given the proper level of scientific inquiry, which varies from terribly simple sixteenth century science to more complex twentieth century, each of the biblical passages on the main page can be shown not inconsistent with science.
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
None of these passages, and the webpage cited, refer specifically to science as the focus of the expression. What I mean is this: when I tell my love, "Your cheeks are like halves of a pomegranate," I am not offering a discourse on the sweetness and color of the fruit. Rather, I am using knowledge we both gained from the consumption of fruit to emphasize the sweetness of her face.
In the same way, the passage below is not a discourse on the science of sand or astronomy:
"Blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies."
The passage does not offer scientific knowledge. Of course, if we could show scientifically that the number of Hebrews exceeds the number of grains of sand, we would have a terrible problem with any sort of literal reading. But knowing that the earth cannot sustain a human population numbering 10^25 also should give us pause when we try to read the passage literally.
Elsewhere on the site, it affirms the same sort of unscientific garbage xtians have been spewing since the rise of Fundamentalism in the mid-nineteenth century.
Originally posted by dj2beckerNo, it isn't based on any assumptions at all except the things that we perceive by our senses have a real, physical existence (i.e. we're not living in the Matrix). Science doesn't speak to the concept of the eternal which is a metaphysical one. That a thing is eternal isn't posited at all by science as it would be an untestable hypothesis like your bland assertion that there is something called God that is eternal because you say so.
That my friend is not science as it is based on the assumption that matter is eternal.