24 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadInvoking God by me or invoking another dimension by you, I don't
I do not know whether the universe has a beginning. Scientifically, we have no evidence either way. If there was a beginning ie time is finite in the past, then the cause/effect system does not apply. We may still ask about 'reasons' but they would be in another dimension and would really have nothing to do with the beginning of the universe. It would ju ...[text shortened]... st, it merely changes the nature of what is here, the 'why is it here' remains unanswered.
see the difference since both acknowledge the universe we see around
us cannot have come up by itself.
Kelly
24 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadSimply put if you do not know how it all started, you don't know from
I see you are peddling your old 'time degrades evidence' claim. What amazes me is that you believe the sun exists as you have never in your life actually seen light from it that was less than 2 minutes old - definitely not the here and now. Is the existence of the sun simply our best guess work?
Do you think I might not exists as my post never reach you ...[text shortened]... ears old? Surely that is not in the here and now and has been degrading for over 2000 years!
what point to start measuring from. It isn't a matter of the Bible giving
me any insight into time, it is a matter of not knowing how the process
began.
Kelly
24 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadIn "nothing" I don't see time being real, but like you I believe as soon
Time is a dimension and an integral part of the universe. I personally cannot visualize time existing on its own or without the spacial dimensions. How would you measure it if there were no events?
By 'eternal' do you mean 'infinite in the time dimension'?
When you suggest the existence of God before the beginning of the universe, do you also sugges ...[text shortened]... then can he be measured in time, as we know that time is relative to the location in space?
as anything or one is, we have before, during, and after taking place.
Kelly
24 Jun 09
Originally posted by KellyJayNeither 'acknowledge' any such thing. They merely try to answer (and fail to do so) the apparent problem of finite causal chains.
Invoking God by me or invoking another dimension by you, I don't
see the difference since both acknowledge the universe we see around
us cannot have come up by itself.
Kelly
24 Jun 09
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't understand your comments here, nor do I see how they are relevant to the post I am replying to. I fully admit that I have no idea how the universe began nor whether it began. I can guess at two basic scenarios, a) it began at the big bang or b) it is older than that.
Simply put if you do not know how it all started, you don't know from
what point to start measuring from. It isn't a matter of the Bible giving
me any insight into time, it is a matter of not knowing how the process
began.
Kelly
My comments however were addressing your age old argument that all our knowledge of history is little more than a 'best guess' with all 'best guess's essentially equivalent and that the 'here and now' is somehow more knowable.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
24 Jun 09
Originally posted by daniel581. How do we know the Bible is correct? Is it that the Bible tells us so?
1. We do know what happened in history the Bible tells us.
2. The Earth did start because we are on it.
3. If nothing was the beginning how did anything start, did something come out of nothing?
2. "The Earth did start because we are on it." ...is an example of question begging.
3. None of us know the answer to this. The main thing that distinguishes us as groups is whether or not we have decided to wrap the unknown in a nice narrative bundle, with ribon and a label with the word 'god' on it.
25 Jun 09
Originally posted by Lord Sharkouch!thats gotta sting.you meanie lord shark
1. How do we know the Bible is correct? Is it that the Bible tells us so?
2. "The Earth did start because we are on it." ...is an example of question begging.
3. None of us know the answer to this. The main thing that distinguishes us as groups is whether or not we have decided to wrap the unknown in a nice narrative bundle, with ribon and a label with the word 'god' on it.
25 Jun 09
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf we do not know how or why it started our judgments about the
I don't understand your comments here, nor do I see how they are relevant to the post I am replying to. I fully admit that I have no idea how the universe began nor whether it began. I can guess at two basic scenarios, a) it began at the big bang or b) it is older than that.
My comments however were addressing your age old argument that all our knowled best guess's essentially equivalent and that the 'here and now' is somehow more knowable.
whole process are very suspect don't you think? At best we have
nothing but a glimpse into the reality we find ourselves in, nothing
more in the here and now, but our assumptions about what we see
and why we see it are very strong beliefs when thinking about the
beginning.
Kelly
25 Jun 09
1 edit
Same procedure as always. If he cannot answer a question, he stalls, he avoids, and he hopse that the question will be forgotten so he will be off the hook.
How about dinos on the ark of Noah, KJ, you are the only one who believes that dinosaurs were vegetarians before the great flooding. You are the only one thinking that every known species of dinosaurs, T-Rex included, strolled around together with elephants, giraffes, and kangarus on the ark, no hurting anyone. Remember that this question is unanswered?
25 Jun 09
Originally posted by KellyJayNot so at all. Is see no reason why knowledge of a beginning should affect any other aspect of our knowledge whatsoever. Does it show that our knowledge is incomplete? Of course it does, but that has never and will never be under dispute. Even if you think you know how it all started, you don't claim to have complete knowledge of the universe and God, so doesn't that make your judgments very suspect? Yet you don't walk around the house as if the roof might fall on your head at any moment do you? Incomplete knowledge does not equal no knowledge nor does it imply inaccurate knowledge. I may not know the precise events surrounding how the solar system was formed but that does not affect my ability to determine where my grandfather was born. You on the other hand would like to claim that my lack of knowledge of the earths early stages renders all my knowledge of the past a 'best guess' and no better than your 'best guess' despite the fact that you don't even know the name of my grandfather.
If we do not know how or why it started our judgments about the
whole process are very suspect don't you think? At best we have
nothing but a glimpse into the reality we find ourselves in, nothing
more in the here and now, but our assumptions about what we see
and why we see it are very strong beliefs when thinking about the
beginning.
Kelly
25 Jun 09
Originally posted by KellyJay1. What do you mean by 'eternal'?
Restate them, I'll try again.
Kelly
You claimed that time precedes the universe.
2. Does space precede the universe?
3. If yes to 2. why is this extension of space time not considered part of the universe?
4. If no, then is time meaningful without space?
5. Is God in time, ie does he do things according to a timeline, or is he independent of time?
6. If yes to 5, doesn't relativity and the fact that God can affect any point in space contradict that to some extent?