Gerioke Posted May 12, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 97 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,850 Content Per Day: 0.84 Reputation: 128 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/19/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/11/1911 Share Posted May 12, 2005 IMO to believe that something came from nothing is more irrational... And yet you claim God is something that came from nothing... We're not the ones denying faith! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> God did not come from nothing. He always was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted May 12, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.93 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted May 12, 2005 IMO to believe that something came from nothing is more irrational... And yet you claim God is something that came from nothing... We're not the ones denying faith! how does that relate to the 2 replies above yours? Let's see, you have no problem accepting that the universe came from "nothing" . . . ? And you don't see this as "faith"? (Yes, I know SA is pointing out "energy" and not "nothing" - however, much about the Big Bang is not understood, yet no one seems to be bothered by this unknown; things are just taken as "is" yet it's not seen as faith but reason - which really does not make sense because things in science are supposed to be questioned and not chalked up to "well we just can't know" - which is what happens with the "singularity" that the Big Bang came from. . . .) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerioke Posted May 12, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 97 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,850 Content Per Day: 0.84 Reputation: 128 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/19/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/11/1911 Share Posted May 12, 2005 The zinger is when the christians are all in heaven with God, He will reveal everything to us and there will be no more guessing at our origins. Everybody else will have other things on their minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bread_of_Life Posted May 12, 2005 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 872 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1981 Share Posted May 12, 2005 horizoneast I think you ARE operating on faith but the thought of accepting something by faith scares you. You can think what you like mate, until you can argue it and evidence it, then it'll be just that, a thought. IMO to believe that something came from nothing is more irrational. I would believe this in either case, whether or not I believed in God. The question to me is "did the universe just exist or did God just exist?", either way, something was uncaused. To correct you again you ARE relying on a form of scientism in which your explanation must be accepted solely on the basis of blind faith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logician Posted May 13, 2005 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 61 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/09/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted May 13, 2005 (edited) Sorry about not answering this sooner. I've not had much time lately. Log Edited May 13, 2005 by Logician Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logician Posted May 13, 2005 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 61 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/09/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted May 13, 2005 (edited) When you make the assertion that God could technically be the originator of mass and energy I understand that you believe mass and energy didn Edited May 13, 2005 by Logician Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logician Posted May 13, 2005 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 61 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/09/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted May 13, 2005 Alright. It's time for installment 2 of the history of life, the universe, and everything (the meaning of which, of course, is 42. Sorry. Inside joke.) Ok. So I got to the formation of the Solar System. Now, the moon was most likely formed (I believe while the Earth was still somewhat molten, I don't know for sure. It's been too long since I've studied this.) by a collision with a large asteroid which split off quite a large chunk (but not all that large in comparison to the rest of the Earth) of the Earth and sent it in orbit around the rest of the Earth. This, of course, cooled and eventually became our moon. Before you ask where the crater from the asteroid is, it's not existant as the Earth was either already molten, or became so due to the asteroid hit. The Earth eventually cooled and settled down to something pretty close to what we see today, except for a different placement of the continents (in fact, they were one supercontinent known as Pangea), but altogether, very similar. The next occurrence was the developement of life. I've already described the origin of life, so I'll just quote it here. While we certainly don't have all the details (because we don't have the time to test it properly), we've got quite a bit of it figured out. I don't consider myself to be an expert in this area, though. I'll fill you in on what I do know, though. First of all, DNA works by producing protiens, which actually perform the "work" of a cell. Protiens are made of amino acids, which are naturally occurring, but necessary to both life as we know it today, and to abiogenesis. What probably happened is that electrical processes feuled by lightening formed strings of self-replicating molecules, which were probably the precursers to DNA or something known as RNA (which is also found today in all living things.) RNA, by the way, can both self-replicate, and create protiens. However, the process was not completely perfect every time (and still isn't today. Small errors in transcription are what mutations are) and small transcription errors occurred. This is where things get sketchy, as we don't really have any way of testing for sure what happened, but it's theorized that a few of these self-replicating molecules by chance (and not a very long stretch either) would produce a protien which would help it protect itself, perhaps by encasing it in a protective casing of some sort. At this point is where you start getting evolution-like phenomena. The molecules began developing more and more effective ways of protecting themselves, getting new methods from transcription errors, and being caused to produce more and more effective ways of protecting themselves by other chemical processes in the same area, as they'd no doubt interfere with its operation. This basically continued until what can be considered a life form, a single-celled organism (or a few) developed. (Now, understand, I'm summerizing millions of years of evolution into a few paragraphs, so do keep in mind that I'm skipping a lot.) From there, it was just evolution. The same transcription errors (called mutations) continued to cause changes in DNA, and thus phenotype, and those with detramental changes died off while those with beneficial changes lived on. Eventually, a method of DNA exchange developed called "conjugation" which eventually led to sexual reproduction. Eventually, some symbiotic relationships developed that lead to the kingdom "protista." Pretty soon, they started forming colonies, which eventually started having specialized members, which led to the first multicelled creatures. These things became things like jellyfish and enemonies, and then arthropods and shellfish (actually, shellfish may have come sooner. I don't know for sure). Over time, some creatures (not direct descendents of the jellyfish and enemonies, but fairly close cousins) developed something like a central nervous system and a spinal chord. This led to sharks and fish. Fish led to lungfish which led to amphibians. Amphibians led to both reptiles and a line which eventually became mammals. One branch of mammals became primates, which eventually produced us. Um. Any questions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bread_of_Life Posted May 13, 2005 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 872 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1981 Share Posted May 13, 2005 But the Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted May 13, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.93 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted May 13, 2005 IMO to believe that something came from nothing is more irrational... And yet you claim God is something that came from nothing... We're not the ones denying faith! how does that relate to the 2 replies above yours? Let's see, you have no problem accepting that the universe came from "nothing" . . . ? And you don't see this as "faith"? When did I ever say that I believed the universe came from nothing? I was piggy-backing the quotes. I appologize for the confusion. (Yes, I know SA is pointing out "energy" and not "nothing" - however, much about the Big Bang is not understood, yet no one seems to be bothered by this unknown; things are just taken as "is" yet it's not seen as faith but reason - which really does not make sense because things in science are supposed to be questioned and not chalked up to "well we just can't know" - which is what happens with the "singularity" that the Big Bang came from. . . .) Where you make the fatal error is in thinking that: A) No one is bothered by not knowing what was before the big bang. B) That "things" are taken as is (I don't know what "things" you are refering to) C) Science does not chalk up anything to "well we just can't know". More truthfully they say "we just don't know, yet". Funny - I recall hearing that we can't know what occured before the Big Bang. Wahtever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted May 13, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.93 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Let's say God is omniscent. If this is the case, he knows he's omniscent. However, conser where he would go if he wanted to confirm his omniscence. About the only place he could go is his own authority. However, it's possible, as far as he knows, that somebody is *tricking* him into thinking that he's omniscent. The case where he is *actually* omniscent and the case where he only *thinks* he's omniscent would be indestinguishable to God, which means he can't know whether he's actually omniscent or not, which means that there's something he doesn't know with certainty, which means he's not omniscent. So, an omniscent god (for that matter, any omniscent being) cannot exist as omniscence itself indroduces contradictions. In other words, God cannot exist because He doesn't fit into your realm of logic reasoning. What if "omniscient" is a term we developed to understand a concept and not something the Lord bothers to contemplate? Why would an all-knowing, all-powerful being need to confirm His omniscience? Your argument acts like it believes God has nothing better to do than to observe His own naval all day! Sorry, but IMO this argument is just as pointless as the "making a rock He can't lift" argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts