Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   atheism
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 111 (6146)
03-05-2002 5:24 AM


atheism and religion, let us make this clear, are completely separate from the realm of science. science provides the facts, and theology explains the creation of these facts...
what really angers me is when people claim that there has to be a god... so how do you define god (bearing in mind that the bible said specifically that He created us in the image of Him)- is He white with a long beard, sandals, and a robe? Is he black? Is he brown skinned in a turban? Is he asian? Starting to get sticky, aren't we?
here's what i believe- the universe, or cosmos, which may be composed of millions of universes, is infinite... it had no beginning, and will have no end... thus it had no creation, and therefore no creator...
not one person in this forum could say otherwise- not one person could prove to me that this is untrue... unless you know something that i don't...
so why do we need a god?
simple
the universe is too large to without one...
why
because COMPARED TO HUMANS, the universe is incomprehensibly large...
yeah, but adjectives are not inherent qualities- they are analytical statements- they are two measurements compared to eachother...
who says that we should compare the size of the universe to ourselves?
in fact, the universe shold not be large... it should be our median and it should be our ultimate- look
the universe is incredibly large compared to the earth
the sun is incredibly large compared to the earth
yet the sun is incredibly small compared to the universe, and so is everything else.
if we stopped thinking in such geocentric dimensions, maybe we'd realize how small we are......

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by bretheweb, posted 03-05-2002 11:51 AM quicksink has not replied
 Message 110 by Brad McFall, posted 05-07-2002 12:07 PM quicksink has not replied

  
bretheweb
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 111 (6151)
03-05-2002 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by quicksink
03-05-2002 5:24 AM


//so how do you define god (bearing in mind that the bible said specifically that He created us in the image of Him)- is He white with a long beard, sandals, and a robe? Is he black? Is he brown skinned in a turban? Is he asian? Starting to get sticky, aren't we?//
I quite agree... I've asked this question for a while now and all I get are non-answers... "god is good, god is love, god is perfect, etc."...
I'd like someone to explain to me how god can be "everywhere", ie., omnipresent, and yet as a strong atheist, I have to go looking for him across the far corners of the known universe.
Is god in hiding?
What I want to know is how god can be claimed to be omniscient, "he knows what you're going to do", and we can still pretend we have free will?
What I want to know is how can an "all loving" (omnibenevolent?) god tolerate the cruelty and vileness that are embodied by some aspects of humanity?
//here's what i believe- the universe, or cosmos, which may be composed of millions of universes, is infinite... it had no beginning, and will have no end... thus it had no creation, and therefore no creator...//
Hmmm... You might want to pick up the April '02 issue of Discover magazine for the article "Guth's Grand Guess" pp32.
Inflationary theory is, based on recent observations, pretty much the dominant Big Bang theory right now.
I liked this line, "The primordial "stuff" of inflation, he and other cosmologists contend, is very likely a spontaneous creation, a no-strings gift that boiled out of absolutely nowhere by means of an utterly random but nontheless scientifically possible process."
And, "All matter plus all gravity in the observable universe equals zero. So the universe could come from nothing because it is, fundamentally, nothing."
//so why do we need a god?//
To comfort us in our fears and to try to explain the "unexplainable" to people unable to grasp complex concepts.
//if we stopped thinking in such geocentric dimensions, maybe we'd realize how small we are...//
If you shrink the earth the the size of a cue ball the earth would smoother than the surface of the cue ball.
The entire ecosystem of the earth extends from roughly 100 miles up to about 20 miles below the surface.
Dunk that cue ball in a muddy, algae-ladden puddle of water and whatever sticks is pretty much the earth.
Its all about scale.
brett
------------------
Faith in a delusional belief does not make that belief not delusional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by quicksink, posted 03-05-2002 5:24 AM quicksink has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-05-2002 10:12 PM bretheweb has replied
 Message 9 by leekim, posted 03-06-2002 1:12 PM bretheweb has not replied
 Message 32 by KingPenguin, posted 03-07-2002 11:43 PM bretheweb has not replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 111 (6162)
03-05-2002 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by bretheweb
03-05-2002 11:51 AM


I readily agree, religion and science are two seperate and distinct things. Atheism, while not a traditional religion, is a form of faith. I believe there is no god. Can I prove he doesn't exist? No
Can you prove he does exist? No. Scientifically, something needs to be observable to fall within its reach.
Its interesting to consider that of all the people who believe in evolution, most of them hold religious views and believe in a creator of some kind. There simply aren't enough of us atheists to cover all the numbers for a majority.
As for the end of the universe, well , take your pick, heat death of the expansionary universe (the theory with the most support at this time) or the big crunch . The wimper or the bang ( ok crunch : ) Either way, adios universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by bretheweb, posted 03-05-2002 11:51 AM bretheweb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by bretheweb, posted 03-06-2002 10:28 AM Darwin Storm has replied

  
bretheweb
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 111 (6186)
03-06-2002 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Darwin Storm
03-05-2002 10:12 PM


//Atheism, while not a traditional religion, is a form of faith.//
Atheism embodies the same sort of "faith" that you take for granted every time you drive your car.
You have "faith" that physics still operates the way it did yesterday.
You have "faith" that gravity will continue to operate.
I have "faith" that there is no god, nor the supernatural, no matter how it is defined.
My "faith" rests on the observable and the pragmatic.
The difference is that religions require *blind faith*.
Faith in the unobservable, or in the miraculous or fantastic.
It would be one thing to declare oneself an atheist if we lived in a world where gods routinely manifested miracles or their avatars to interact with us.
Where it would be common place to actually receive a boon for your subsurvience.
But we do not live in such a world.
//Its interesting to consider that of all the people who believe in evolution, most of them hold religious views and believe in a creator of some kind.
If often boggles my mind at the kinds of things people can believe in.
But understand that for most rational people, science and religion/belief are two completely different things.
//There simply aren't enough of us atheists to cover all the numbers for a majority.//
And there might never be.
Modern atheism is only about 200 years old.
Prior to that it was simply too difficult, socially (unless you enjoyed being an outcast), to hold such a position.
It took the Enlightenment and the advent of the Industrial Revolution to provide the rational basis to even derive the notion of there being no god/supernatural.
Couple that with the backlash of the "atheist" Communist take over of Russia and China and the "social darwinism/atheism" of Nazi Germany and people simply refuse to believe that there isnt some greater purpose.
It is simply too painful to contemplate humanities innate ability for inflicting pain, misery and death on itself.
I'd say we just need to wait it out... give it some time... and people will come around.
Except that religions thrive on social discomfort and change and I'm wondering what will happen now that the Information Age is no longer in its infancy.
//As for the end of the universe, well , take your pick, heat death of the expansionary universe (the theory with the most support at this time) or the big crunch . The wimper or the bang ( ok crunch : ) Either way, adios universe.//
Whats that line?
"No one gets out of here alive"?
There aint no "do-overs".
brett
------------------
Faith in a delusional belief does not make that belief not delusional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-05-2002 10:12 PM Darwin Storm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-06-2002 12:28 PM bretheweb has not replied
 Message 7 by Punisher, posted 03-06-2002 12:45 PM bretheweb has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5005 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 5 of 111 (6191)
03-06-2002 12:11 PM


quote:
Atheism, while not a traditional religion, is a form of faith.
Define faith.
This will probably explain why you believe this.

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 111 (6192)
03-06-2002 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by bretheweb
03-06-2002 10:28 AM


I agree with most of what you said. My point of using the word "faith" to describe atheism was to make a distinction between atheism and science. I personally agree with you that atheism isn't blind faith. However, scientifically it is difficult to prove a negative. Also I was trying to point out for our creationist friends that atheism and science are not the same thing. There are many religious people in the scientific community (again why I pointed out atheism's limited portion of society. I think atheists and agnostics count for roughly 10 % of the population, but not sure on that figure) who, like you said , are able to distinguish between science and faith. Evolution is a scientific theory. It, in no way, tries to teach a philosophy of morals, nor does it say anything about the existance of a "creator".
I don't know about the other atheists on this board, but atheism was a personal choice. I was raised in a religious family, went to sunday school, the whole nine yards. However, I was always interested in science, even at a young age. I remember my favorite programs were the science programs about biology, astronomy, ect that were on PBS. By the time I was in junior high, I had already discarded the idea of a "correct religion". Through junior high and highschool, my study of history clearly laid out the religions of our world as political forces, both good and bad. In fact, much of the world's conflicts and hatreds seem to be rooted in religious beliefs. I have observed nothing in this world that gives any credence to the existance of a god. Though mostly agnostic at the time, I believed if there was an omniscient all powerful being, He ( I use the pronoun for conveniece only, since gender isn't neccessary for a non-biological organism. Heck, its not even neccessary for alot of biological organisms) sure would not have made such a menagerie of conflicting faiths.
Since then, I have come to accept atheism as the most logical choice and embraced it. It isn't always an easy path. The oblivion of non-being at death is a frightening aspect. In fact, I sometimes envy religious people their conformt of faith, even if I believe that it is self deception. However, I hate deception, even self deception, and can't bring myself to believe in mythology when there is no evidence in support of the existance of god.
I'd be happy to discuss my atheistic viewpoints with whoever is interested. However, atheism has nothing to do with the validity of evolution, so I don't know how appropriate it would be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by bretheweb, posted 03-06-2002 10:28 AM bretheweb has not replied

  
Punisher
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 111 (6194)
03-06-2002 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by bretheweb
03-06-2002 10:28 AM


quote:
The difference is that religions require *blind faith*.
I would disagree. My faith appears logical and not at all blind. For example: I see an automobile; I have faith in an engineer, I see a house; I have faith in an architect. If you write a letter is the information in the ink?
Its a fairly safe assumption to say that you must input intelligence and information to output order and complexity. So, I see the ordered and complex world around me and easily place faith in a 'designer'.
Your view, on the other hand, requires a blind faith assumption that matter came from nowhere for no reason and formed itself into complex information systems against everything we observe today.
DS: Are you are saying that God is such that He cannot be known by man or that He simply doesn't exist? Either way, you are claiming to know something about God. This claim to knowledge is inconsistent with your claim to be an atheist."
[This message has been edited by Punisher, 03-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by bretheweb, posted 03-06-2002 10:28 AM bretheweb has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by joz, posted 03-06-2002 1:06 PM Punisher has replied
 Message 24 by nator, posted 03-07-2002 5:57 AM Punisher has not replied
 Message 27 by Quetzal, posted 03-07-2002 8:59 AM Punisher has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 111 (6195)
03-06-2002 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Punisher
03-06-2002 12:45 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Punisher:
1)I would disagree. My faith appears logical and not at all blind. For example: I see an automobile; I have faith in an engineer, I see a house; I have faith in an architect. If you write a letter is the information in the ink?
2)Its a fairly safe assumption to say that you must input intelligence and information to output order and complexity. So, I see the ordered and complex world around me and easily place faith in a 'designer'.
3)Your view, on the other hand, requires a blind faith assumption that matter came from nowhere for no reason and formed itself into complex information systems against everything we observe today.

1)Your analogy falls at the first hurdle in that none of these are natural systems...
(Oh and there is no "information" in the ink only in the patterns it forms on the paper...)
And how are you defining "information" carried by biological organisms anyway? We hear this argument a lot but so far no-one has stepped up to the plate and defined "information" in a biological sense...
2)Its a baseless assumption and one that requires circular reasoning...
You must take the fact that artificial (defined as not observably naturally occuring) systems are designed, you then assume that this applys to all systems, therefore assuming that life is designed, you then say life is designed so there is a designer....
You already assumed a designer by your assumption that all systems not just artificial ones are designed...
3)Matter does come from nowhere it has been experimentally observed, its called quantum vacuum fluctuatuion....
Abiogenesis has more evidence for it than Genesis, the Urey-Miller experiments etc....
Again you use the term "information" without prior definition, please define what "information" is and how you quantify it?....
[This message has been edited by joz, 03-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Punisher, posted 03-06-2002 12:45 PM Punisher has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Punisher, posted 03-06-2002 1:21 PM joz has replied

  
leekim
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 111 (6196)
03-06-2002 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by bretheweb
03-05-2002 11:51 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by bretheweb:
[B]//so how do you define god (bearing in mind that the bible said specifically that He created us in the image of Him)- is He white with a long beard, sandals, and a robe? Is he black? Is he brown skinned in a turban? Is he asian? Starting to get sticky, aren't we?//
I quite agree... I've asked this question for a while now and all I get are non-answers... "god is good, god is love, god is perfect, etc."...
I'd like someone to explain to me how god can be "everywhere", ie., omnipresent, and yet as a strong atheist, I have to go looking for him across the far corners of the known universe.
----God has "revealed" himself recently upon the Earth in various "miracles" ie. Fatima, Padre Pio and the stigmata, etc (from a Catholic perspective). Although you will mock these "miracles" as falsehoods, I see them as a manefestation of God's existence. God reveals himself in a manner that is commensurate with his will, not yours. Maybe you fail to "see" him because you truly are blind.
What I want to know is how god can be claimed to be omniscient, "he knows what you're going to do", and we can still pretend we have free will? What I want to know is how can an "all loving" (omnibenevolent?) god tolerate the cruelty and vileness that are embodied by some aspects of humanity?
---The fact that God already knows how you will live your life (omniscient) does not negate the fact that you have free will. It is humanity, not God, that engages in "cruelty and vileness".
//here's what i believe- the universe, or cosmos, which may be composed of millions of universes, is infinite... it had no beginning, and will have no end... thus it had no creation, and therefore no creator...//
Hmmm... You might want to pick up the April '02 issue of Discover magazine for the article "Guth's Grand Guess" pp32.
Inflationary theory is, based on recent observations, pretty much the dominant Big Bang theory right now.
I liked this line, "The primordial "stuff" of inflation, he and other cosmologists contend, is very likely a spontaneous creation, a no-strings gift that boiled out of absolutely nowhere by means of an utterly random but nontheless scientifically possible process."
And, "All matter plus all gravity in the observable universe equals zero. So the universe could come from nothing because it is, fundamentally, nothing."
---"The primordial "stuff" of inflation, he and other cosmologists contend, is very likely a spontaneous creation, a no-strings gift that boiled out of absolutely nowhere by means of an utterly random but nontheless scientifically possible process." And, "All matter plus all gravity in the observable universe equals zero. So the universe could come from nothing because it is, fundamentally, nothing."
I find it utterly amusing that atheists and "scientific" minds rely upon the aforementioned premise (or similiar "Big Bang" theories) as the beggining of the universe, a pure hypothetical based upon no "observable facts", yet they mock those that believe in a Supreme Being. One question I always pose to evolutionists is the simple principle of "something from nothingness"...ie one must concede (at least in my mind) that at some point in time there was absolute nothingness (if you except your premise that God does not exist) and from that nothingness life suddenly "arose" or as your author put it "a no-strings gift that boiled out of absolutely nowhere by means of an utterly random but nontheless scientifically possible process" (huh?). How does science attempt to VALIDLY explain this issue?
//so why do we need a god?//
To comfort us in our fears and to try to explain the "unexplainable" to people unable to grasp complex concepts.
---One cannot grasp "complex" concepts, therefore one turns to God. That comment, in and of itself, exemplifies your extremely limited and biased view of those who think contrary to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by bretheweb, posted 03-05-2002 11:51 AM bretheweb has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by joz, posted 03-06-2002 1:32 PM leekim has replied
 Message 25 by nator, posted 03-07-2002 6:05 AM leekim has not replied

  
Punisher
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 111 (6197)
03-06-2002 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by joz
03-06-2002 1:06 PM


quote:
Matter does come from nowhere it has been experimentally observed
"The vacuum fluctuation served to bring into existence the spacetime 'stage' and populate it with raw energy in the form of a small number of fundamental fields, perhaps even gravity as the MOST fundamental field. All else may have emerged...almost miraculously...as this quantum system cooled and found itself by chance trapped into one path of evolution favoring universes like ours as the outcome."
Quoted from Dr. Sten Odenwald; evolutionist
Yeah, that sounds like its going somewhere. "Somehow", "by chance", "almost miraculously" this stuff happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by joz, posted 03-06-2002 1:06 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by joz, posted 03-06-2002 1:39 PM Punisher has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 111 (6198)
03-06-2002 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by leekim
03-06-2002 1:12 PM


quote:
Originally posted by leekim:
1)God has "revealed" himself recently upon the Earth in various "miracles" ie. Fatima, Padre Pio and the stigmata, etc (from a Catholic perspective). Although you will mock these "miracles" as falsehoods, I see them as a manefestation of God's existence. God reveals himself in a manner that is commensurate with his will, not yours. Maybe you fail to "see" him because you truly are blind.
2)The fact that God already knows how you will live your life (omniscient) does not negate the fact that you have free will. It is humanity, not God, that engages in "cruelty and vileness".
3)I find it utterly amusing that atheists and "scientific" minds rely upon the aforementioned premise (or similiar "Big Bang" theories) as the beggining of the universe, a pure hypothetical based upon no "observable facts", yet they mock those that believe in a Supreme Being. One question I always pose to evolutionists is the simple principle of "something from nothingness"...ie one must concede (at least in my mind) that at some point in time there was absolute nothingness (if you except your premise that God does not exist) and from that nothingness life suddenly "arose" or as your author put it "a no-strings gift that boiled out of absolutely nowhere by means of an utterly random but nontheless scientifically possible process" (huh?). How does science attempt to VALIDLY explain this issue?

1)The problem with these incidents is that 100% of humanity didn`t directly experience them (did you yourself experience them?) therefore an attitude of doubt in the Cartesian sense "This may look convincing but it as I am relying on someone elses account how do I know they are not decieving me?"(Descartes actually employed the same doubt to phenomena he experienced directly through his senses...)) is perfectly justified...
2)Actually logically speaking this sort of divine foreknowledge implys predestination ergo no free will......
3)The difference is that QVF is observable in a lab by anyone (anyone who has the requisite level of knowledge and experimental ability that is)....
Can you say the same for special creation? Can anyone experience first hand God creating the universe?
[This message has been edited by joz, 03-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by leekim, posted 03-06-2002 1:12 PM leekim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by leekim, posted 03-06-2002 2:28 PM joz has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 111 (6199)
03-06-2002 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Punisher
03-06-2002 1:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Punisher:
Quoted from Dr. Sten Odenwald; evolutionist
Actually he is a cosmologist....
And his ask ask the astronomer page that you presumeably quote from (as you didn`t give a book or journal reference) is here:
http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/acosmbb.html
So which question does he answer that to? This is the perfect opportunity to examine a creationists quote along side the original....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Punisher, posted 03-06-2002 1:21 PM Punisher has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Punisher, posted 03-06-2002 1:46 PM joz has not replied
 Message 14 by joz, posted 03-06-2002 1:57 PM joz has not replied

  
Punisher
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 111 (6200)
03-06-2002 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by joz
03-06-2002 1:39 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
Actually he is a cosmologist....
And his ask ask the astronomer page that you presumeably quote from (as you didn`t give a book or journal reference) is here:
http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/acosmbb.html
So which question does he answer that to? This is the perfect opportunity to examine a creationists quote along side the original....

Can a cosmologist be an evolutionist too? The original question and quote is here...I did not intend to take anything out of context, sorry for not providing the link.
http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/q2030.html
Note the first sentence of the quote I left out. "We don't know"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by joz, posted 03-06-2002 1:39 PM joz has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 111 (6201)
03-06-2002 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by joz
03-06-2002 1:39 PM


Don`t worry I found it myself...
(added by edit - Ah I see you provided the link, probably as I was typing this)
"How could a quantum vacuum fluctuation produce a universe with well- ordered laws of physics, rather than complete randomness?
We do not know. It is not known just how or where the 'laws of physics' are ultimately proscribed for our universe. One possibility is that there is/are/ were an infinite number of alternate ways that our universe could have emerged from this quantum process. In some sense, all of these alternate versions were/are realized, and that our universe is one of a large number that were imparted with the right laws to continue the Big Bang and the evolution of our universe. Of course we do not know why there even are natural laws in the first place, but we do know that increasing temperature and energy can seriously alter the way these natural laws behave, and also the properties of the particles that they interact with. The natural laws at the 'beginning' of the Big Bang may not have looked anything like the ones we now see, if you believe the hints that seem to be coming from high energy physics experiments. Some physicists in the last 10 years have speculated that at sufficiently high energies, all is complete chaos, and that natural laws emerge from this the way that ice emerges from water cooled low enough.
The vacuum fluctuation served to bring into existence the spacetime 'stage' and populate it with raw energy in the form of a small number of fundamental fields, perhaps even gravity as the MOST fundamental field. All else may have emerged...almost miraculously...as this quantum system cooled and found itself by chance trapped into one path of evolution favoring universes like ours as the outcome. The same system, however, could have evolved along other paths to produce a very different universes. "
From:
http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/q2030.html
However the quote you gave is just part of an answer that addressed the issue of why fundamental constants and laws are what they are....
As such his answer states that QVF abrought the material into being and that that became our universe with our constants and laws, the miraculously part comes about because he hypothesises that there were other possibilities (which he cannot know for sure as he has only experienced the laws and constants of this universe...) and that our universe could be considered to be one possible state of a quantum system, i.e part of a wavefunction of possible universes....
[This message has been edited by joz, 03-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by joz, posted 03-06-2002 1:39 PM joz has not replied

  
leekim
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 111 (6203)
03-06-2002 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by joz
03-06-2002 1:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
1)The problem with these incidents is that 100% of humanity didn`t directly experience them (did you yourself experience them?) therefore an attitude of doubt in the Cartesian sense "This may look convincing but it as I am relying on someone elses account how do I know they are not decieving me?"(Descartes actually employed the same doubt to phenomena he experienced directly through his senses...)) is perfectly justified...
---So, based upon your logic, 100% of humanity must "directly experience" something in order for it to be true? Please tell me that you truly don't mean this? I have read several accounts regarding Padre Pio during his lifetime and he did indeed have the "stigmata". Again, utilizing your flawed logic, have you ever performed and personally seen a QVF experiment (referenced below)? If not, you cannot comment on their validity.
2)Actually logically speaking this sort of divine foreknowledge implys predestination ergo no free will......
---Predestination only from the perspective that God is aware of the actions any and all matter will engage in during their respective life spans. That does not negate ones ability to have free will to engage in those actions which the Supreme Being has predetermined knowledge of.
3)The difference is that QVF is observable in a lab by anyone (anyone who has the requisite level of knowledge and experimental ability that is)....
---QVF in no way demonstrates or negates my premise that "something cannot arrive from nothingness" at the inception of time when absolutely nothing existed.
Can you say the same for special creation? Can anyone experience first hand God creating the universe?
---You are being grossly dishonest when you bring forth the premise that QVF is scientific prove of the origins of life / matter, etc.
[This message has been edited by joz, 03-06-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by joz, posted 03-06-2002 1:32 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by joz, posted 03-06-2002 3:14 PM leekim has replied
 Message 26 by nator, posted 03-07-2002 6:43 AM leekim has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024