Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 02/27/04 2:08pm
In reply to:
Damoclese.
's message, "A message brought to you by our sponsors" on 02/24/04 12:10pm
>(1) TIME. No one can point to
>>a certain moment as the beginning of time.
>
>Yes they can. Try looking into the singularity that is
>and was the universe and the Big Bang.
I agree with Damoclese on this one. I think the past is finite and begins with the Big Bang. But from this I also infer the cosmological argument. Anything that begins to exist has a cause (ex nihilo nihil fit), since the universe began to exist, it was created by an extremely powerful (hey, creating the universe is a big job) outside agency that transcends time itself.
> And it is
>>fact that, even though our lives end, time does NOT.
>
>Red flag! Red Flag! Danger Will Robinson!!!! A future
>prediction about the nature of time is logically
>impossible.
Really? I predict that time will still exist tomorrow. My prediction will come true (want to bet $50 on it?). If a prediction about time is logically impossible, it would seem you have a safe bet. But methinks you may be mistaken.
>>(2)SPACE. Astronomers find NO beginning or end to
>>space.
>
>Yes they do. Before the big bang, space as we know it
>didn't exist.
Again, I agree with Damoclese. But again, it only seems to lend support to the theist. An extremely powerful outside agency that transcends time and space created the universe.
>>Which is more reasonable-- that the universe is the
>>product of a living, intelligent creator? or that it
>>must have arisen simply by chance from a nonliving
>>source without intelligent direction? Some persons
>>adopt the latter viewpoint because to believe
>>otherwise would mean that they woud have to
>>acknowledge the exsistence of a creator whose
>>qualities they cannot fully comprehend.
>
>As if accepting the universe originated without a
>creator would be easy to "fully comprehend".
Hmm, relatively speaking...
> But it is well
>>known that scientists do not FULLY comprehend the
>>functioning of the genes that are within living cells
>>and that determine how these cells will grow. Nor do
>>they fully understand the funtioning of the human
>>brain. Yet who would deny that these exist?
>
>One can see pictures of cells and brains using
>different methods. They could just extract a brain.
>Got any pictures of God? Do you have some God
>binoculars?
Got any pictures of magnetic fields? Do you have some magnetic field binoculars? You cannot observe magnetic fields. You can observe their effects, but not the fields themselves. A similar thing could be said with various other postulated entities in science.
>>Drink this in. When is the last time you looked up
>>into the sky at night an marvelled at the stars. If
>>any one of those were a millemetre out all could go
>>pear shaped very quickly. the same with the sun or
>>the moon, if they were slightly off we would burn or
>>we would freeze etc. To say that these are of
>>coincedence is surely short sited.
>
>You're right, they aren't merely coincidence. Once the
>initial ball got rolling, the universe had to be the
>way it is because there was no other way for it to be
>so.
But the question is, why this way? Which theory best explains the creation of the universe? The universe coming from nothing and just happens to have all the fine-tuned characteristics necessary for life, the consistent operation of sophisticated mathematical patterns etc. Or is an extremely powerful intelligent creator that transcends time and space more reasonable? All the evidence considered, methinks it's the latter.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 