26 Jun 09
Originally posted by KellyJayAre you able to address the point I was making:
Since I believe He governs all the universal rules I'd say not, even
your other dimension spilling into this one could have things about
it that didn't fall into this one if it were true, unlike your other
dimension God is Lord of all. I do believe He is bound by only one
thing(s) His nature, meaning He will not lie and so on. So I'd say that
God does have to live within some certain rules, many of which He
sets for no other reason.
Kelly
1. You claim a rule is universal and use it to deduce the existence of a creator.
2. You do not apply the rule to the creator proving the rule is not universal thus invalidating the original argument.
26 Jun 09
Originally posted by KellyJayThat makes some sense, but it still doesn't really solve the problem I am getting at. He still does not seem to 'honor' the rule when applied to himself nor do you accept the possibility that the universe itself is simply honoring the rule - but does not have to and may have made and exception for the 'beginning'.
Why would God be bound by it, I believe He honors it to keep it pure
but bound is another thing altogether. I believe His honoring it maybe
the samething as your suggesting after thinking about it, if He honors
it to keep it pure, He binds Himself to it since He is a God of order.
Kelly
26 Jun 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonAs far as I can tell he is trying to make an argument for the existence of a creator without using scripture. He does seem to be too quick to deduce a creator from what appears to be just an unanswered question.
KellyJay
Is any of those assertions based on anything other than either just opinion or interpretation of stories from scriptures?
Don’t you see anything wrong at all with basing all beliefs on things other than evidence or reason?
-I want to help you (and others) here.
I first part of the thread started with a false dichotomy ie 'something from nothing' or 'God exists and created the universe'. Then he shows that 'something from nothing' is ridiculous.
26 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat's always the problem when scientific deducing methods are used to prove one or another religious aspect. You always find yourself in a circular reasoning, or some weard definition using religious words in a scienctific context. It simply cannot be done. religion and science cannot ever mix.
As far as I can tell he is trying to make an argument for the existence of a creator without using scripture. He does seem to be too quick to deduce a creator from what appears to be just an unanswered question.
I first part of the thread started with a false dichotomy ie 'something from nothing' or 'God exists and created the universe'. Then he shows that 'something from nothing' is ridiculous.
One fundamentalist was once arguing that evolution was wrong because BigBang couldn't have... etc. I asked him why he mixed evolution and BigBang? I got the impression that he defined BigBang as a religious word how everything started, i.e. genesis. As evolution couldn't explain how anything started, his own BigBang theory, i.e. genesis, must be the right one.
Is Genesis really true? Yes, because it says so in the bible. Is the bible true? Yes, because it is inspired by the holy spirit. Is there any holy spirit in the first place? Yes, if you look up in the bible, several notions are given about the holy spirit. Etc... Circular proving.
If we want to start a scientific discussion about anything involving god, we have to first give a definition about 'what is god'. The problem is that there are not any well definition about this. Theists don't have a full covered definition, they argue about it, even go to war about it. So if this basic definition doesn't exist, then not anything involving god must be pure opinions, nothing more, basicly not science.
Religion and science cannot be mixed.
26 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't see why!
So by that definition, there cannot be a 'before the universe' as that would imply time which would imply 'in the universe' by your definition above.
Our lives can be an example, lives looking at just our bodies are
systems each unto themselves. There was a time before we were born,
there is a time while we are a live, and there is time afterwards, time
and its passage plays a part of all that goes on within our lives, but
it doesn't mean it never started until we were born, we may mark it
as very important while we are alive, and our beginnings is the starting
point but thats it.
Kelly
26 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have already said, even according to your definition of how the
So by that definition, there cannot be a 'before the universe' as that would imply time which would imply 'in the universe' by your definition above.
universe came to be, from the stand point of what ever started the
universe there was a before, during, and afterwards from when the
universe started. You seem to be hung up on it only matters from
the perspective of within the universe itself, which isn't taking it all
into account.
Kelly
26 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm saying it is comparing apples to oranges, I believe the universe
Are you able to address the point I was making:
1. You claim a rule is universal and use it to deduce the existence of a creator.
2. You do not apply the rule to the creator proving the rule is not universal thus invalidating the original argument.
has a beginning, God does not.
Kelly
26 Jun 09
4 edits
Originally posted by daniel58So you mean “moral” rules.
The rules we hopefully live by.
By the way, I don’t think there is such thing (I don't think there is such thing as "moral" ) -although I don’t anticipate that this would ever have any significant effect on my general social behaviour thus rendering this fact purely academic.