- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
04 Sep 06
Originally posted by David CIn fact, as the sun is burning itself out (almost imperceptable to us), one might even make the simile that it is "giving it's life so that we may live". Sound familiar?
Yes.
I, personally, have no evidence. There are numerous avenues you might choose to discover the evidence for yourself, including many fine higher learning institutions where you can learn about subjects like biology and evolution. In all the scientific models I've ever seen, the energy being poured out from the sun is an integral part of the development ...[text shortened]... he Sun exist?", but phrasing the question in this manner is called "question begging".
Does the fact that the sun is burning itself out not suggest that it is not eternal and must have had a beginning?
dj, do you understand that this is not a reasonable question? You might try something like "where did the Sun come from?" or "Why does the Sun exist?", but phrasing the question in this manner is called "question begging".
Do you know of anything with a beginning that was not made? My question is a fair one.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
04 Sep 06
Originally posted by dottewellI said my question was a fair one.
If it's a fair one, then explain why "the sun" is NOT a fair answer.
Because the sun is running out of energy, it implies that the sun is not eternal and thus not the starting point. If the sun made man, but is in itself not the starting point, it is fair of me to ask who made the sun.
04 Sep 06
2 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerIt is fair of you to ask what made the sun, if by "made" you mean caused rather than designed & created by an intelligent agent.
I said my question was a fair one.
Because the sun is running out of energy, it implies that the sun is not eternal and thus not the starting point. If the sun made man, but is in itself not the starting point, it is fair of me to ask who made the sun.
If by "made" you specifically mean designed & created by an intelligent agent, then "the sun" is a fair answer.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
04 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by dottewellIt is fair of you to ask what made the sun, if by "made" you mean caused rather than designed & created by an intelligent agent.
It is fair of you to ask what made the sun, if by "made" you mean caused rather than designed & created by an intelligent agent.
If by "made" you specifically mean designed & created by an intelligent agent, then "the sun" is a fair answer.
Is something not 'caused' by implication if it was designed & created?
If by "made" you specifically mean designed & created by an intelligent agent, then "the sun" is a fair answer.
For "sun" to be regarded as a fair answer you need to explain what capabilities the sun has in order to be regarded as an intelligent enough agent to design & create man.
Do you really believe that the human brain with it's million billion connections is the product of the sun?
If so, please explain how the sun can do this, and where the sun got its intelligence from because by implication the sun was designed & created by something else because it is not an eternal being.
04 Sep 06
2 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerIs something not 'caused' by implication if it was designed & created?
Is something not 'caused' by implication if it was designed & created?
All things that are designed & created by an intelligent agent are caused. But not all things that are caused are designed & created by an intelligent agent.
If by "made" you specifically mean designed & created by an intelligent agent, then "the sun" is a fair answer.
I'm saying that the sun is an example of something that was caused, but not designed & created by an intelligent agent. It was made by a process, not by a being.[/b]
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
04 Sep 06
Originally posted by dottewellAll things that are designed & created by an intelligent agent are caused. But not all things that are caused are designed & created by an intelligent agent.
[b]Is something not 'caused' by implication if it was designed & created?
All things that are designed & created by an intelligent agent are caused. But not all things that are caused are designed & created by an intelligent agent.
If by "made" you specifically mean designed & created by an intelligent agent, then "the sun" is a fair answer.[/ ...[text shortened]... d & created by an intelligent agent. It was made by a process, not by a being.[/b]
Fair enough.
I'm saying that the sun is an example of something that was caused, but not designed & created by an intelligent agent. It was made by a process, not by a being
But you are saying that the sun is an intelligent agent? Is that correct?
If so I gather it must have been caused by an intelligent process?
04 Sep 06
dj, just out of curiosity, have you ever read the Quran? I mean really read, not just scan through? Throughout your posts here, it seems that you are implying that the contents of other 'holy' books are false. Only the bible is the true one. How did you arrive at such a conclusion? Is it because you could 'understand' the bible more? Is it because the parables are more meaningful?
04 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2becker[/b]No, I'm not saying that, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I'm merely saying that you can't assume that everything needs a "maker". This is something that has to be established, not taken for granted. You need to establish both that there needs to be a first cause, and that this first cause was an intelligent agent.
[b]All things that are designed & created by an intelligent agent are caused. But not all things that are caused are designed & created by an intelligent agent.
Fair enough.
I'm saying that the sun is an example of something that was caused, but not designed & created by an intelligent agent. It was made by a process, not by a being[/b ...[text shortened]... nt agent? Is that correct?
If so I gather it must have been caused by an intelligent process?
04 Sep 06
Originally posted by dottewellSounds fair enough, dottewell; and I fully agree that the fact should be established, not taken for granted. But I think you are missing the point here, dottewell. You and I rely on a different standard to establish the fact. But people like dj have their own standard. As far as dj is concerned, he HAS ESTABLISHED the fact, you see. And his standard is based on the bible. To him, the bible is evidence enough, because he believes in the bible's contents unconditionally. And so, since the bible says that no one created God, that is considered as an establishment of fact to him.
No, I'm not saying that, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I'm merely saying that you can't assume that everything needs a "maker". This is something that has to be established, not taken for granted. You need to establish both that there needs to be a first cause, and that this first cause was an intelligent agent.[/b]
But to people like you and I, we would question the accuracy of the bible. We wonder if the writers of the bible made any mistakes. We ask if they wrote it from a neutral point of view, or were they bias. We even wonder that since the information were not immediately recorded, but decades later, whether some details might have been wrongly recollected etc. And the end result is that we are not convinced that no one created God on the strength of the bible.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
04 Sep 06
Originally posted by ckoh1965I appreciate your question: Yes, I have comprehensively studied both.
dj, just out of curiosity, have you ever read the Quran? I mean really read, not just scan through? Throughout your posts here, it seems that you are implying that the contents of other 'holy' books are false. Only the bible is the true one. How did you arrive at such a conclusion? Is it because you could 'understand' the bible more? Is it because the parables are more meaningful?
Unlike other holy books, the Bible alone has been supernaturally confirmed to be the word of God. For only the Scriptures were written by prophets who were supernaturally confirmed by signs and wonders. Jesus did many miracles, Mohammed did none. The Bible was written over thousands of years by many different authors from all over the world, but still had the same comprehensive message in it. Mohammed was the only auther of the Quar'an.
No other book in the world has authors who were confirmed in miraculous manners. Of all the religious leaders, neither Confucius nor Buddha nor Muhammed nor Joseph Smith was confirmed by miracles verified by contemporary and credible witnesses. The Bible alone proves to be the Word of God written by prophets and apostles of God who were confirmed by special miraculous acts of God.
The Old Testament has nearly 200 predictions about the coming of Christ that were made hundreds of years in advance. Just a small sampling shows that they predicted with complete accuracy that the Messiah would be born
-of a woman (Genesis 3:15)
-of the line of Abraham (Gen 12:1-3; 22:18)
-through the tribe of Judah (Gen 49:10)
-of the son of David (2 Sam 7: 12-13) etc.
-in the city of Bethlehem (Micah 5:2)
-and suffer for our sins (Isaiah 53) at about 33 AD (Daniel 9:24-26)
-and rise from the dead (Psalm 16:11) etc.
Even Bible critics all admit these prophecies were given 200 -700 years before the time of Christ, which eliminates any guessing or reading the trends of the times. Further, these prophecies are both detailed and specific. They give the very ancestery, place, and times of Chrsit's coming. No other religious book offers anything that can compare with these supernatural predictions.
On the other hand the Quar'an lacks any real evidence that it is the Word of God. Consider a few crucial points. First, Muhammad himself first believed that the message he got from the angel chocking him was a demon. Muslim biographer M.H. Haykal wrote vividly of Muhammad's plaguing fear that he was demon-possessed. (M.H. Haykal, The Life of Muhammad)
Second, the Quar'an contradicts the Bible on essential teachings. As I have evidence to believe that the Bible is the Word of God, both the Bible and the Quar'an cannot be true at the same time, as condratictory truth claims cannot both be true at the same time.
Third, although Muhammad recognised that the prophets before him were confirmed by miracles of nature, he himself refused to perform any miracles to confirm his claims to be a prophet (Sura 3:181-84).
Fourth, unlike the Bible, the Quar’an has no specific, multiple, and longterm predictions that came to pass without fail. The best supported example of a predictive prophecy is about the Romans avenging a defeat (Sura 30:2-4), but this is vague, indefinite, and humanly predictable.
There is a lot more I could say, but I hope you get the picture.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
04 Sep 06
Originally posted by dottewellNo, I'm not saying that, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I'm merely saying that you can't assume that everything needs a "maker".
No, I'm not saying that, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I'm merely saying that you can't assume that everything needs a "maker". This is something that has to be established, not taken for granted. You need to establish both that there needs to be a first cause, and that this first cause was an intelligent agent.
But you can assume that everything which was made and has a beginning needs a maker.
This is something that has to be established, not taken for granted. You need to establish both that there needs to be a first cause, and that this first cause was an intelligent agent.
Correct. This totally corresponds with my Theistic viewpoint. I am trying to establish what the intelligent first cause is within an Atheistic framework.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
04 Sep 06
Originally posted by dottewellBut you can assume that everything which was made and has a beginning needs a maker.
Why?
The above statment has the following premises:
1. Something which is made has a beginning.
2. For something to be made, a maker is needed.
Which premise do you disagree with, and why?
04 Sep 06
5 edits
Originally posted by dj2becker[REMOVED FOR REPHRASING]
[b]But you can assume that everything which was made and has a beginning needs a maker.
The above statment has the following premises:
1. Something which is made has a beginning.
2. For something to be made, a maker is needed.
Which premise do you disagree with, and why?[/b]