20 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie…BEFORE the universe existed what was time?
because he is not restricted to time in the same sense that we are, what is it about that you do not understand? before the universe existed what was time? meaningless? non existent? thus if we state that God has existed before the universe, is it not clear that he resides outwith the realms of time? you blether Mr. Hamiltion! 😛
… (my emphasis)
How can you know that there was a “BEFORE” the universe existed?
Do you claim to know something about the physics of the big bang that the physicists don’t?
Would you claim to know more about the big bang than they do?
20 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonLol, oh Andrew its so very simple to one who has not limited his search for truth to unintelligent causes, before the universe their was God. i claim nothing, for i have yet to see evidence of intelligence and design as the direct consequence of a random act, and a potentially destructive one at that, 🙂
[b]…BEFORE the universe existed what was time?
… (my emphasis)
How can you know that there was a “BEFORE” the universe existed?
Do you claim to know something about the physics of the big bang that the physicists don’t?
Would you claim to know more about the big bang than they do?[/b]
20 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie…a random act
Lol, oh Andrew its so very simple to one who has not limited his search for truth to unintelligent causes, before the universe their was God. i claim nothing, for i have yet to see evidence of intelligence and design as the direct consequence of a random act, and a potentially destructive one at that, 🙂
..…
Are you referring to evolution? If so, it isn’t all random and has some predictability for the natural selection part of it isn’t random and it isn’t “A” act but many acts of natural selection selecting for each favourable mutation as and when those mutations come.
It is only the mutations that are random but mutations are inevitable and given enough of them there are bound to be a few favourable ones with the rest gradually eliminated by natural selection.
There is a mountain of evidence for evolution. And the fact that natural selection would select for intelligence and then ever greater intelligence is not surprising as intelligence is advantageous to survival.
20 Jun 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltoni know my friend, i was just having some fun 😵
[b]…a random act
..…
Are you referring to evolution? If so, it isn’t all random and has some predictability for the natural selection part of it isn’t random and it isn’t “A” act but many acts of natural selection selecting for each favourable mutation as and when those mutations come.
It is only the mutations that are random but mutations ...[text shortened]... nd then ever greater intelligence is not surprising as intelligence is advantageous to survival.[/b]
20 Jun 09
Darwin INVENTED EVOLUTION, THERE IS NO DENYING IT, the scientists or whatever you want to call them said that it started such and such a year ago, when other Scientists proved them wrong than they they said it was really longer ago than that, then the Scientists proved that they were wrong again and they kept moving the year they said it started back. Is this your mountain of evidence for evolution?
22 Jun 09
Jebus. A simple question and it turns into people yammering on about evolution darwin and imaginary time??
No wonder you people can't figure anything out.
Only one person gave it a legitmate shot that was more than 2 sentences.
Most, if not all, of you missed the underlying point here. If you cannot explain WHY God exists, then you cannot claim he exists.
22 Jun 09
Originally posted by uzlessI dont need proof to know God exists (not wtitten proof anyway,which is all you can get from a post)
Jebus. A simple question and it turns into people yammering on about evolution darwin and imaginary time??
No wonder you people can't figure anything out.
Only one person gave it a legitmate shot that was more than 2 sentences.
Most, if not all, of you missed the underlying point here. If you cannot explain WHY God exists, then you cannot claim he exists.
philosophers have debated about 'existence' ad infintum and the conclusion?
Nothing.
It is like the concept of 'meaning', Humans desire it for the sake of their own proofs and ego-satisfying.
Does a dog have bhudda-nature?
WU! (woof)😉
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
22 Jun 09
Originally posted by uzlessFirstly, we can know that something exists without knowing why it exists, for example mountains fell into this category before geology came up with a plausible theory of plate tectonics.
Jebus. A simple question and it turns into people yammering on about evolution darwin and imaginary time??
No wonder you people can't figure anything out.
Only one person gave it a legitmate shot that was more than 2 sentences.
Most, if not all, of you missed the underlying point here. If you cannot explain WHY God exists, then you cannot claim he exists.
Secondly, many theists would hold that since god is a necessary being, it doesn't make sense to ask your 'why' question.
So rather than assuming people missed your point maybe you should reassess its strength and conclude that some people might not have deemed it worth engaging? Just a thought 🙂
22 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by daniel58…Darwin INVENTED EVOLUTION,
Darwin INVENTED EVOLUTION, THERE IS NO DENYING IT, the scientists or whatever you want to call them said that it started such and such a year ago, when other Scientists proved them wrong than they they said it was really longer ago than that, then the Scientists proved that they were wrong again and they kept moving the year they said it started back. Is this your mountain of evidence for evolution?
…
Err, not quite. He discovered it from his observations and his reasoning -you need to look up your basic history.
…the scientists or whatever you want to call them said that it started such and such a year ago, when other Scientists proved them wrong than they they said it was really longer ago than that, then the Scientists proved that they were wrong again and they kept moving the year they said it started back.
..…
Are you talking about when the first life got started? If so, evolution isn’t a theory of how or when life got started thus how or when life got started is irrelevant to evolution. Darwin never said nor claimed to know exactly when life got started -and why should he? -what relevance would it have to his discovery?
…. Is this your mountain of evidence for evolution?
…
No -this is:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01
http://txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVcontents.html
…and many more science links point out such evidence.
To deny the evidence would be to deny the validity of many fields of well-established science.
22 Jun 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonevolution is totally valid.
[b]…Darwin INVENTED EVOLUTION,
…
Err, not quite. He discovered it from his observations and his reasoning -you need to look up your basic history.
…the scientists or whatever you want to call them said that it started such and such a year ago, when other Scientists proved them wrong than they they said it was really longer ago than tha ...[text shortened]...
To deny the evidence would be to deny the validity of many fields of well-established science.
Darwin is just one pawn in its many manefestations
22 Jun 09
5 edits
Lord Shark,Firstly, we can know that something exists without knowing why it exists, for example mountains fell into this category before geology came up with a plausible theory of plate tectonics.
We know that mountains exist. We can see and touch them. We can neither see nor touch God. Belief is not evidence.
Secondly, many theists would hold that since god is a necessary being, it doesn't make sense to ask your 'why' question.
So, god must exist in order for the theists theory to work....?
classic
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
22 Jun 09
1 edit
"We know that mountains exist. We can see and touch them. We can neither see nor touch God. Belief is not evidence."
Nor did I say that it was. I just pointed out that knowing that something exists can be logically separate from knowing why something exists. I did this to demonstrate that your 'underlying point':"If you cannot explain WHY God exists, then you cannot claim he exists." is invalid.
If you can't see why this is so, I'd be happy to explain further.
"So, god must exist in order for the theists theory to work....?
classic"
This is the Argument From Contingency, I'm sure you have heard of it as you have correctly identified it as a classic.
Just in case you are unclear on the distinction between this and the kalam argument, this is a useful link:
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-cosmological-argument/the-argument-from-contingency/
23 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by daniel58These are deep questions. Why does God exist is a question I can't hope to answer.
Let me put it a different way, why does existance exist?
However, in my experience an unspeakable peace about existence as a whole comes over my whole being when I consider the love of God. Somehow knowing the great love of God in Christ Jesus makes the whole universe more sensible and peaceful to my being:
"Who is he who condemns? It is Christ Jesus who died and, rather, who was raised, who is also at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation or anguish or persecution or famine or nakedness or peril or sword? ... But in all these things we more than conquer through Him who loved us.
For I am persuaded that neither death nor life not angels not principalities nor things present nor things to come or powers nor height nor depth nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (See Romans 8:35-39)