- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
10 Aug 05
Originally posted by vistesdFine. Just one question...
Okay, go read my post and Starrman's right above it again. If you still want to "use" God to fill in the gaps, go ahead. But it's a terribly weak approach for a theist to take--a gap that you used God to fill this year, might not be there next year... Ooops, no need for God for that one! Also, please note my "dividing line" exception--though I may well be challenged on that one by a non-theist, and I haven't thought it through thoroughly....
Don't you think that there are some gaps in science which can never be filled, e.g. "Where did matter come from?" and "Where did the laws of nature come from?" and "Where did energy come from?" etc. etc.
10 Aug 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerNo - and even if I did, that doesn't automatically make it god that does fill that gap.
Fine. Just one question...
Don't you think that there are some gaps in science which can never be filled, e.g. "Where did matter come from?" and "Where did the laws of nature come from?" and "Where did energy come from?" etc. etc.
10 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerThat raises the same question about God, and so it really doesn't add any weight to either naturalist or religious arguments.
Fine. Just one question...
Don't you think that there are some gaps in science which can never be filled, e.g. "Where did matter come from?" and "Where did the laws of nature come from?" and "Where did energy come from?" etc. etc.
edit:
besides that's at least 3 questions.
and I redacted a reference to the Higgs field
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
10 Aug 05
Originally posted by frogstompIt does not raise the same question about God, since He is eternal by definition, whereas it can be proven that the universe has a begining.
Look up the Higgs Field.
That raises the same question about God, and so it really doesn't add any weight to either scientific or religious theories.
10 Aug 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerYour definition , others might define the universe as eternal and some of them have mathematic "proofs" for their assertion.
It does not raise the same question about God, since He is eternal by definition, whereas it can be proven that the universe has a begining.
10 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerThink about this, dj2—don’t react, just let it turn in your mind for awhile:
Fine. Just one question...
Don't you think that there are some gaps in science which can never be filled, e.g. "Where did matter come from?" and "Where did the laws of nature come from?" and "Where did energy come from?" etc. etc.
Science will not answer the questions that it does not ask (i.e., those that are outside the scientific paradigm).
Scientists (those I have known anyway) understand that, which is not to say that the scientific paradigm cannot expand to answer new questions that formerly were outside its purview. Now, what are the important questions in life, for you, that science does not address? Where and how do you find answers to those questions (religious and non-religious in nature)? How willing are you to change your answers as your life experiences and knowledge and understanding change?
Those are not only questions that touch on God and religion, though they may touch on that too. After all, philosophy, too, is still alive and well….
I really have to pack it in now: I’m starting to feel like a vampire who can only sleep during the day…
10 Aug 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerIt certainly can if you are declaring properties of hypothetical entities.
Mathematics cannot prove whether or not something is eternal.
I've whipped your butt on mathematical questions so many times in this forum that it no longer gives me any satisfaction.
Unlike in your personal theology, you can't just make crap up in mathematics. Learn some basic math before making any more authoritative statements about what can and can't be done with it.
10 Aug 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerAny postulation the "science cant prove this or that" means there is a Creator" is fallacious since it only actually says : science hasn't proved this or science won't be able to prove that , and adds nothing to the idea of a creator
If you are too slow let me explain. The point is that if there are limitations to science it would mean God could fill the gaps. If there are ultimately no limitations to science it would mean that God could not fill the gaps. Was that too complicated, or do you follow?😀
The argument about a "first cause" is just as valid when applied the existence of God.
A second point is that the existence of a creator wouldn't in any way prove that the god of the bible created anything or even existed.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
10 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionOK. Fine. Give me the Maths to prove that God is not eternal.😀
It certainly can if you are declaring properties of hypothetical entities.
I've whipped your butt on mathematical questions so many times in this forum that it no longer gives me any satisfaction.
Unlike in your personal theology ...[text shortened]... uthoritative statements about what can and can't be done with it.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
10 Aug 05
Originally posted by frogstompSo do you think that science will ever produce the answer of where matter came from?
Any postulation the "science cant prove this or that" means there is a Creator" is fallacious since it only actually says : science hasn't proved this or science won't be able to prove that , and adds nothing to the idea of a creator
The argument about a "first cause" is just as valid when applied the existence ...[text shortened]... wouldn't in any way prove that the god of the bible created anything or even existed.
10 Aug 05
1 edit
Fair enough dj. For hypothetical discussion with the weak example you set, I will indulge you and say, "Wow. You have conclusively proven the existence of God because I can't see the wind but I feel it".
Alright, I believe the universe was created by Galactus, the devourer of worlds. He sent his herald, the Silver Surfer, to find a prime location and he made it in about an earth day.
As an agnostic, I am not offended in any way of the notion of perhaps a supreme being existing. In many ways I hope there is. What is offensive is your attempt at being subtle and trying to "prove" that because the wind exists it must mean Jesus Christ is God. Your approach is so underhanded and so unsophisticated.
At least as far as I have been reading, I have not noticed any other faiths in here attempting to do the same thing. You know why? Because I believe it is such a deeply personal thing for them and they do not attempt to pimp their beliefs on others like telemarketers.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
10 Aug 05
Originally posted by Joe FistWhat is offensive is your attempt at being subtle and trying to "prove" that because the wind exists it must mean Jesus Christ is God.
Fair enough dj. For hypothetical discussion with the weak example you set, I will indulge you and say, "Wow. You have conclusively proven the existence of God because I can't see the wind but I feel it".
Alright, I believe the universe was created by Galactus, the devourer of worlds. He sent his herald, the Silver Surfer, to find a prime location an ...[text shortened]... sonal thing for them and they do not attempt to pimp their beliefs on others like telemarketers.
When did I try to do this? When did I mention anything about my faith? Please enlighten me. I am afraid you are the one that is bringing my faith into this discussion.
10 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerAre you joking? Time and time again you have announced your Christianity. Fine you have not done it here (yet) so are you honestly saying you have created this thread to prove that any god or gods exist?
[b]What is offensive is your attempt at being subtle and trying to "prove" that because the wind exists it must mean Jesus Christ is God.
When did I try to do this? When did I mention anything about my faith? Please enlighten me. ...[text shortened]... d you are the one that is bringing my faith into this discussion. [/b]
And if that is the case and you are not attempting to promote your agenda (which I don't believe for one second) why is it so important to you to disprove the Atheist?