jerryR34 Posted February 27, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted February 27, 2014 So, as this topic was formed from a comment/question I made in another thread, I have another question to further narrow the scope. One can go to almost any fossil rich strata (there are exceptions like folded strata), and view the geologic column - i.e. see more primative organisms lower with them getting more similar to current species as you get to higher strata. One could easily deduce that older fossils were laid down first, so species changed over time. If one did not have any concept of any creation myths, how would this be proof of any God, specifically, how could one infer the Christian God and Christ from this natural information or any natural information if one did not know of them previously. This kind of evidence is what would be needed to prove God scientifically. Anyone have anything? Again, try to come to it from a perspective that you do not know anything about God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-seeker Posted March 18, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 589 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/06/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted March 18, 2014 You have only three options: 1. The Universe has always existed (in Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics); 2. The Universe created itself (in Violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics); or3. The Universe was Created by GOD. Again, false dichotomy. Current scientific consensus is that the universe came from a point of singularity, and the universe is expanding. This makes this argument moot. Hello Jerry. I don't exactly adhere to all of Enoch's assumptions. Actually he and I disagree and a lot. But I am a Christian. I've always wondered about this: if the universe came from a point of singularity, and (philosophically speaking) there is a cause/effect relationship behind every event, when and why did the universe begin to expand? There is no creator to "start anything". What got point 0 to point 0.oooo1? It is already begging the question to say that a unit (however small) of matter just existed. But then to say that this "exploded" begs the question, "Why at that point in time?" Why not later? Why not before? For one like myself raised on philosophy the answer is "there is none". It all goes back to Aristotle's Prime Mover (although Christianized, and not as Aquinas supposed). clb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted March 18, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Author Share Posted March 18, 2014 Hello Jerry. I don't exactly adhere to all of Enoch's assumptions. Actually he and I disagree and a lot. But I am a Christian. I've always wondered about this: if the universe came from a point of singularity, and (philosophically speaking) there is a cause/effect relationship behind every event, when and why did the universe begin to expand? There is no creator to "start anything". What got point 0 to point 0.oooo1? It is already begging the question to say that a unit (however small) of matter just existed. But then to say that this "exploded" begs the question, "Why at that point in time?" Why not later? Why not before? For one like myself raised on philosophy the answer is "there is none". It all goes back to Aristotle's Prime Mover (although Christianized, and not as Aquinas supposed). clb ===================================================================================== I don't exactly adhere to all of Enoch's assumptions These aren't Assumptions sir: 1. The Universe has always existed (in Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics); 2. The Universe created itself (in Violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics); or3. The Universe was Created by GOD. The first 2 are Basic Physics using the "PILLARS OF SCIENCE" The 3rd is: The RECKONING I've always wondered about this: if the universe came from a point of singularity, It didn't/doesn't and it's a Laughable Impossible Postulate. 'Infinite density point mass singularity's' are forbidden by Special Relativity. Please show me Mathematically HOW that it's even possible: D = m/v ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted March 18, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted March 18, 2014 (edited) Hello Jerry. I don't exactly adhere to all of Enoch's assumptions. Actually he and I disagree and a lot. But I am a Christian. I've always wondered about this: if the universe came from a point of singularity, and (philosophically speaking) there is a cause/effect relationship behind every event, when and why did the universe begin to expand? There is no creator to "start anything". What got point 0 to point 0.oooo1? It is already begging the question to say that a unit (however small) of matter just existed. But then to say that this "exploded" begs the question, "Why at that point in time?" Why not later? Why not before? For one like myself raised on philosophy the answer is "there is none". It all goes back to Aristotle's Prime Mover (although Christianized, and not as Aquinas supposed). clb ===================================================================================== I don't exactly adhere to all of Enoch's assumptions These aren't Assumptions sir: 1. The Universe has always existed (in Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics); 2. The Universe created itself (in Violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics); or3. The Universe was Created by GOD. The first 2 are Basic Physics using the "PILLARS OF SCIENCE" The 3rd is: The RECKONING Again, Enoch, you are creating false dichotomies - 3. is a non sequitur as it falls outside the physical laws/pillars you cite. You can't make up your own rules just because they make sense in your head - science does not work that way no matter how creative you get with your font. Edited March 18, 2014 by jerryR34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted March 18, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Author Share Posted March 18, 2014 ========================================================================= Again, Enoch, you are creating false dichotomies - 3. Since there are 3.....it should be a False Tri-chotomy. But it's neither False or Di/Tri-chotomies. And again, it's another Baseless Unsupported Fallacious Assertion. You can't make up your own rules just because they make sense in your head - science does not work that way no matter how creative you get with your font. They're not my rules, just Basic Physics and Common Sense. Go ahead and Systematically Step by Step Refute it....I'll get the Popcorn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted March 18, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Go ahead and Systematically Step by Step Refute it....I'll get the Popcorn. There is nothing to systmatically refute. You haven't proven anything. You listed two laws of thermodynamics then, using your "common sense" jumped to God. You can't even prove which god should be the supernatural agent much less if there is one. You are the one making "Baseless Unsupported Fallacious Assertion(s)". Again, Enoch, you need to come with something more than it making sense to you...You hold others to standards that you yourself fall well short of... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted March 18, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Author Share Posted March 18, 2014 =============================================================================== You haven't proven anything. Ahhh Yes, I have....it's right here: There is nothing to systmatically refute. If it helps you sleep @ night .You hold others to standards that you yourself fall well short of... Another, Baseless Unsupported Assertion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-seeker Posted March 19, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 589 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/06/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted March 19, 2014 Go ahead and Systematically Step by Step Refute it....I'll get the Popcorn. There is nothing to systmatically refute. You haven't proven anything. You listed two laws of thermodynamics then, using your "common sense" jumped to God. You can't even prove which god should be the supernatural agent much less if there is one. You are the one making "Baseless Unsupported Fallacious Assertion(s)". Again, Enoch, you need to come with something more than it making sense to you...You hold others to standards that you yourself fall well short of... So....anyway. I was really talking to Jerry. Can you answer my question (and Enoch, can you just hold off for a moment?) clb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted March 19, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Author Share Posted March 19, 2014 Go ahead and Systematically Step by Step Refute it....I'll get the Popcorn. There is nothing to systmatically refute. You haven't proven anything. You listed two laws of thermodynamics then, using your "common sense" jumped to God. You can't even prove which god should be the supernatural agent much less if there is one. You are the one making "Baseless Unsupported Fallacious Assertion(s)". Again, Enoch, you need to come with something more than it making sense to you...You hold others to standards that you yourself fall well short of... So....anyway. I was really talking to Jerry. Can you answer my question (and Enoch, can you just hold off for a moment?) clb ========================================================================= (and Enoch, can you just hold off for a moment?) Yes.........but only for a moment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheniy Posted March 19, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 223 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 27 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/07/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted March 19, 2014 Again, false dichotomy. Current scientific consensus is that the universe came from a point of singularity, and the universe is expanding. This makes this argument moot. Hello Jerry. I don't exactly adhere to all of Enoch's assumptions. Actually he and I disagree and a lot. But I am a Christian. I've always wondered about this: if the universe came from a point of singularity, and (philosophically speaking) there is a cause/effect relationship behind every event, when and why did the universe begin to expand? There is no creator to "start anything". What got point 0 to point 0.oooo1? It is already begging the question to say that a unit (however small) of matter just existed. But then to say that this "exploded" begs the question, "Why at that point in time?" Why not later? Why not before? For one like myself raised on philosophy the answer is "there is none". It all goes back to Aristotle's Prime Mover (although Christianized, and not as Aquinas supposed). clb Hey, Jerry I am also curious to see how you respond to clb's post above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts