Originally posted by DeepThought"There is no evidence for a designer. You have not provided any. The scientific theories fit the evidence."
Science is about controlling uncertainties. Scientific results come with confidence intervals. This stuff is based on theories that have been tested with great precision.
Time depends on reference frame, and a reference frame depends on it´s physical surrounding. You can´t imagine an earliest time so you deny it exists. The difference in the rat ...[text shortened]... evidence for a designer. You have not provided any. The scientific theories fit the evidence.
Everything is evidence, it is there for all to use. I'm of the opinion that
you cannot show me a process that does what you claim evolution does
the way you describe it being done. I can show you design doing the
things we are talking about. Each of us believes and sees the world
as we believe it to be, that does not make our assumptions right, be
they filtered through science or faith.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm not avoiding anything, you are not reading or if you are you are
I'm not avoiding anything, you are not reading or if you are you are
not able to grasp that on the table there are three different schools
of thought on the table here.
Creation has an eternal God in it, the Christian version that is.
ID and evolution both have issues with the everything from nothing.
Since I'm a creationist and when you directly a ...[text shortened]... e issues of all things
coming from nothing. You are the one with the paradox not me.
Kelly
not able to grasp that on the table there are three different schools
of thought on the table here.
I don't ask about what others think, I ask what you think. You cannot hide behind others view in order to avoid the question.
Creation has an eternal God in it, the Christian version that is.
ID and evolution both have issues with the everything from nothing.
Has nothing to do with my question.
Since I'm a creationist and when you directly ask me about my faith, I tell you God created the heavens and earth and all that is in them.
So he created heavens from nothing? Then it is possible to get something from nothing? That's just what you're saying, right? So with your doubled tounged mouth you say two different things that cannot both be true at the same time!
I already know that you are an anti science creationist, that's nothing to be proud of.
Beyond that, all other belief systems have the issues of all things
coming from nothing.
Your belief system seems to have problems with that, and that's what we discuss now.
Originally posted by FabianFnas[/b]You asking me to prove a point I don't hold, I've told you exactly
[b]I'm not avoiding anything, you are not reading or if you are you are
not able to grasp that on the table there are three different schools
of thought on the table here.
I don't ask about what others think, I ask what you think. You cannot hide behind others view in order to avoid the question.
Creation has an eternal God in ]
Your belief system seems to have problems with that, and that's what we discuss now.
what I believe, not my fault you cannot grasp it. God created the
the universe and all that is in it by the power of His Word, that is
not nothing. You have nothing, it is your beliefs that start with nothing
and have nothing but your "beliefs" that support your views about
things that you claim took place billions of years ago.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou have proven the thing already, you have proven that there *can* be things out of nothing. I'm not the one at fault because you cannot realize that.
You asking me to prove a point I don't hold, I've told you exactly
what I believe, not my fault you cannot grasp it. God created the
the universe and all that is in it by the power of His Word, that is
not nothing. You have nothing, it is your beliefs that start with nothing
and have nothing but your "beliefs" that support your views about
things that you claim took place billions of years ago.
Kelly[/b]
If you try to twist the words in the usual KellyJay retorics, then it doesn't change the fact that you actually believe that there can be something out of nothing.
Case closed. Discussion over. You've lost. You're a fake creationist.
Originally posted by FabianFnasAs always, facts, actual statments, evidence just sort of go right over
You have proven the thing already, you have proven that there *can* be things out of nothing. I'm not the one at fault because you cannot realize that.
If you try to twist the words in the usual KellyJay retorics, then it doesn't change the fact that you actually believe that there can be something out of nothing.
Case closed. Discussion over. You've lost. You're a fake creationist.
your head.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayDon't continue this conversation if you don't want to appear as an even bigger loser.
As always, facts, actual statments, evidence just sort of go right over
your head.
Kelly
But I would gladly chrush your argument further, but I'm a gentle nature.
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou make stuff as you go to smear people, you ignore things that
Don't continue this conversation if you don't want to appear as an even bigger loser.
But I would gladly chrush your argument further, but I'm a gentle nature.
do not agree with your point of view, you cry like a little girl about
people bringing God into the science form yet you do it all the time,
that is your nature.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayPersonal attack is always a losing strategy. So you lost - again.
... you cry like a little girl ...
Want to lose again? Then try to answer this:
You say that Universe didn't begin with nothing? It began with the word of god, right?
Word of god is not material, right? So you get material from non-material, i.e. something out of nothing.
This time without personal attacks or you will one more time be a loser in this debate.
Realize that you cannot bring religion into a scientific debate about science, it's futile. If you don't see this, then I can say to every one of your postings - "You are wrong, because god told me so!", and I win time after time because I use religion. By using religion in an scientific debate is a clear cut losing strategy. I don't use religion, I use science and logic. therefore I'm the winner.
Originally posted by KellyJayIs it possible to make an observation or do an experiment to determine the existence of God?
[b]"There is no evidence for a designer. You have not provided any. The scientific theories fit the evidence."
Everything is evidence, it is there for all to use. I'm of the opinion that
you cannot show me a process that does what you claim evolution does
the way you describe it being done. I can show you design doing the
things we are talking a ...[text shortened]... that does not make our assumptions right, be
they filtered through science or faith.
Kelly[/b]
The answers to all this is contained in my forthcoming book Dancing In Emptiness: Reality Revealed at the Interface of Quantum Physics and Buddhist Philosophy. Althought the following is from my paper The Quantum Mind Only Universe:
The following is an astonishing Sufi description of this process of manifestation of all possibilities within the All-Possibility:
…multiplicity is objective as well as subjective-the cause of diversifying contingency being in each of the two poles of perception-and that multiplicity or diversity is in reality a subdivision … of its manifesting projection, which is existential and universal Substance. Diversity or plurality is therefore not opposed to Unity; it is within it and not along side it. Multiplicity as such is the outward aspect of the world … a diversified and diversifying projection of the One. The metacosmic cause of the phenomenon of multiplicity is All-Possibility, which coincides by definition with the Infinite, the later being an intrinsic characteristic of the Absolute. The divine Principle … tends by this very fact to radiate, hence to communicate itself-to project or make explicit all the ‘possibilities of the Possible’
As the quantum physicist Dieter Zeh says:
In the beginning was the wavefunction.
In his book Life Without Genes Adrian Woolfson presents us with a poetic version of the sort of field of potentiality that he imagines must have ‘existed’ before the dawn of life within the universe:
In the beginning there was mathematical possibility. At the very inception of the universe fifteen billion years ago, a deep infinite-dimensional sea emerged from nothingness. Its colourless waters, green and turquoise blue, glistened in the non-existent light of the non-existent sun … A strange sea though, this information sea. Strange because it was devoid of location …
However Woolfson's use of the term 'nothingness' is incorrect, but then most Westerners get this wrong. Emptiness, which is the condition of potentiality - hovering between existence and non-existence is the correct term. Nothing can come from nothingness, all manifestation arises from the all-possibility of emptiness, or sunyata.
More details can be found at www.quantumbuddhism.COM.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIf your asking me can you/I prove God is real, no. That does not
Is it possible to make an observation or do an experiment to determine the existence of God?
at mean that you cannot know God, meet God, become a Child of
God through Christ. God can reveal Himself to you, you cannot force
God to do anything.
Kelly
Originally posted by FabianFnasYea what ever. I don't know why I bothered with you again, I told
Personal attack is always a losing strategy. So you lost - again.
Want to lose again? Then try to answer this:
You say that Universe didn't begin with nothing? It began with the word of god, right?
Word of god is not material, right? So you get material from non-material, i.e. something out of nothing.
This time without personal attacks or you wil ...[text shortened]... losing strategy. I don't use religion, I use science and logic. therefore I'm the winner.
myself once before you were a waist of time.
Kelly