Why Should I Believe in God? - Page 66

Sternwallow · 04-11-2008, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Hanevet wrote

Souls don't exist.

im bgnig to thing ILOVEJESUS dsnt xist bsides makin no sense.

psychodiva · 04-12-2008, 03:23 AM

ouch!

psychodiva · 07-09-2008, 01:16 PM

MODS!!!!!! where are you?????????

Smellyoldgit · 07-09-2008, 01:18 PM

Just back from the curry house & pub.
Apart from post 977, wot's the problem?

psychodiva · 07-09-2008, 01:19 PM

same post everywhere

Kate · 07-09-2008, 01:19 PM

She no speekin da engrish, mod man.

psychodiva · 07-09-2008, 01:20 PM

I think Ghoul needs some of that stuff

07-15-2008, 09:43 AM

Does the reason to the existance of the universe lie within the universe itself ? If not, then it follows science will never be able to provide an answer to the reason for existance of the universe. So it follows the reason for the existance of the universe will forever remain a question of belief/faith ? If the answer is yes, then either science have found the answer or it will one day find the answer. If science have found the reason what is it ? If science is yet to find the answer, how can atheists already know that the answer will proof that no God exists ?

How can the coming into existance of the universe be called a naturual event, if there was ultimately nothing including nature (spacetime, energy, matter) ? If the coming into existance of the universe wasn't naturual, then it is proof of at least one scientifically unexplainable (supernaturual) event occuring ?

07-15-2008, 10:15 AM

Talk about circular reasoning...

First of all, it is perfectly acceptable to think that the answer to the origin (if there is one) of the cosmos and the natural world does lie within the universe itself. Therefore the very first step in your little "proof" is fallible.

Second, if you claim that there had to be a creator because time, space, and matter had to start somewhere, then you have to define a creator for the creator, and a creator for that creator, and so on and so forth.

If you can't fathom the reason for something, the next logical step is investigation and testing, most certainly not a supernatural explanation. The 19th century would like its logic back...

Kate · 07-15-2008, 10:33 AM

Here ya go, Prof! You two are within striking distance...meetup??

Ah, hell. I'm leaving. Never mind

Professor Chaos · 07-15-2008, 10:41 AM

Do you get automatic leave for Steelers/Browns games? Hey wait, I pay taxes. Don't I pay your salary? I hereby give you time off...

Kate · 07-15-2008, 10:44 AM

Yeah, make sure to send me the dates for those games, maybe I can swindle some time off....

07-15-2008, 10:56 AM

No, no leave for games. But I haven't missed a Steeler game since Week 2 in 1996. 1st game against the Ratbirds.

I manage to steal Sundays away, and the occasional Monday and Thursday nights. Good 'ol shore tour.

I'll tell my CO that you said that, we'll see where that gets me...

Professor Chaos · 07-15-2008, 11:02 AM

A Steeler fan from the Navy and a Browns fan from the Army...

Fight nice, you two.

07-15-2008, 11:29 AM

Quote:

SteelCurtain wrote

Talk about circular reasoning...

>>First of all, it is perfectly acceptable to think that the answer to the >>origin (if there is one) of the cosmos and the natural world does lie >>within the universe itself. Therefore the very first step in your little >>"proof" is fallible.

So your opinion is that science will someday be able to give the answer to the question: "Why does the universe exist ?". And that it will either be: "For no reason at all" or for some other reason which exclude any kind of Creator ? But at this time the answer to this question must still be one of belief/faith ?

>>Second, if you claim that there had to be a creator because time, >>space, and matter had to start somewhere, then you have to define a >>creator for the creator, and a creator for that creator, and so on and >>so forth.

4 Dimensional spacetime came into existance together with the universe (matter, energy,nature,forces). Therefore when the universe did not exist, you cant talk about a beginning or ending only an eternity of nothing or an eternity in which a Creator exists which is timeless (no need to be created).

>>If you can't fathom the reason for something, the next logical step is >>investigation and testing, most certainly not a supernatural explanation. >>The 19th century would like its logic back...

I still need to know how could the caming into existance of the universe be described as a natural event, if no nature (science, force, matter, energy) existed yet ? And if it wasn't natural, how will you ever be able to find the answer through scientific investigation and testing ?