Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Wednesday, May 14, 03:34:01am

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9, 10 ]

Subject: A Response to Nathan Author: Biff [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 06/25/03 11:09pm Hello friends, I was just passing through the old neighborhood, and I noticed some interesting new posts. Let me apologize for not dropping in more often, and please do not take it to be a rejection of any of you or any kind of frustration with your arguments. It's simply that the other commitments in my life have begun to occupy so much of my time and energy. I was particularly intrigued by the new article submitted to the main page by Nathan, intrigued because it relates directly to a thought I've been working on recently. Nathan argues against Creationism, saying that that it simply displaces the necessity of spontaneous generation of life, i.e. if life on earth did not occur spontaneously, but was created, then its creator must have, or the creator's creator and so on. He also says that if it's possible that God simply always existed, the same possibility must be afforded to "natural life." My thought is this: To merely say that God has always been is not inaccurate, but is also not quite complete. It is more complete to say that God exists in eternity. Everything that exists in time has a beginning and at least a theoretical end. In fact, we could define time as a method of indicating starts and finishes. A world-class 100 metre sprint ends about ten seconds after it begins, the average man dies about 80 years after he is born, the earth began X number of years ago and will end in the unforeseeable future, etc. Eternity, however, by definition, has no beginning and no end. Therefore, we can reason that eternity is the absence of time. By saying that God must have had a beginning, we are again making the common error of placing natural limitations on a supernatural being, this example being the limitation of time. If God, as the Bible clearly claims, exists in eternity, then he would have no beginning and no end. If he has had no beginning, it is then unreasonable to say that he must have either been created or spontaneously generated. I'll be interested to read your comments and responses to this thought. But if I don't be surprised if I don't get back in a short amount of time. Unlike God, I only have so much of it to go around. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]