Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
23 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK (2 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,822 Year: 16,858/19,786 Month: 983/2,598 Week: 229/251 Day: 0/58 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 3475 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 516 of 687 (524360)
09-16-2009 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 496 by ICANT
09-14-2009 10:59 AM


Re: Re:Life
First off, I would like to say hello to all. I've learned a great deal reading this forum and this board in particular. It especially blew my mind when it occurred to me how the universe has always existed even though it is only 13 and some odd billion years old. And the idea that there is no before because there was no time sent shivers up my spine. I can see why it can be a difficult concept for some to wrap their mind around.

I would like a clarification from ICANT. I think I'm beginning to see what your argument for life is and why specifically you believe you can't create something from nothing and why it is easier for you to believe something is eternal.

If I understand correctly, your contention is that God created life because life cannot come from non-life. You mention that God breathed life into Adam, making Adam alive. Since life cannot come from non-life, as you argue, God must be alive in order to have given life to Adam. Now if God is alive and not eternal, then God must have been created because you believe that something that is not eternal must have a beginning and a creation point, right? And because life cannot arise from non-life, if God is alive and not eternal then something else must have created God, perhaps an even greater GOD. Since you can't believe that a greater GOD created God, but allowing life to come from non-life means, in your mind, allowing evolution a backdoor to legitimacy (even though evolution says nothing about how life came to be), you must believe that God is eternal. Have I got that right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2009 10:59 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 517 by Straggler, posted 09-16-2009 8:47 AM Izanagi has not yet responded
 Message 521 by ICANT, posted 09-16-2009 11:18 AM Izanagi has responded

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 3475 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 528 of 687 (524477)
09-16-2009 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 521 by ICANT
09-16-2009 11:18 AM


Re: Re:Life
ICANT writes:

Evolution has to have life existing to be able to evolve. If the God of Genesis created life as He says then evolution can not be true. Mankind was created as full grown adults Gen 2:7. Trees were made to grow out of the ground. Gen 2:9 Man was told he could eat fruit from all the trees but one. Gen 2:16, 17. Full grown creatures were formed from the ground. Gen 2:19. The first man named all these creatures. Gen 2:29 Creation by God and evolution are not compatable. You can't mix them.

Ok then, for you, it really comes down to whether or not the story in Genesis is true. Then I have a few questions for you:

1) It said that God created Adam and Eve, the first people. They ate the apple and were cast out of Eden. After, we go directly into the story of Cain and Abel. When Cain goes into the land of Nod, where did his wife come from? Keeping in mind that Genesis 5 is the book of the generations of Adam, besides Cain, Abel, and Seth in Genesis 4, there is no mention of anyone else being born to Adam and Eve until after Seth. And if others were born prior to Seth, why were they not mentioned in Genesis 5, which says that Adam begat many sons and daughters after Seth was born, but says nothing about people born before Seth.

B) In the flood story, eight people survived the flood. My question is how eight people could have repopulated the Earth, ignoring the fact that a population that low would be quite inbred. Keep in mind that the starting population of eight would have had to breed enough people to account for all the cultures in the world. As a corollary, why is it that every other culture in the world are ignorant about God. Why is it that, if everyone is descended from Noah and Noah and his family witnessed the power of God, there are no references to the Judeo-Christian God in any other cultures? If all humanity is descended from Noah and his family and they are followers of a monotheistic God, why are there so many polytheistic religions with gods like Zeus, Odin, Izanagi, Purusha, Hurakan, etc. Why is it that the Hebrews were allowed knowledge of God but no others? Keep in mind that the Bible states belief in God is required for salvation, it seems incredible elitist to deny salvation to the world by allowing worship of other gods except for a select group of people. After all, what makes the Hebrews so special that they are allowed to keep knowledge of God?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 521 by ICANT, posted 09-16-2009 11:18 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 3475 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 532 of 687 (524539)
09-17-2009 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 527 by Modulous
09-16-2009 6:56 PM


Re: Re Light
I spent a few hours last night reading up on relativity. It's a fascinating subject and I can see why a misunderstanding can occur. In our minds based on daily experience, there are things that are absolute. But the theory of relativity throws that out and says that time and space are relative to whomever is doing the observation.

Honestly ICANT, I don't think you should be arguing against Physics. Physics relies on mathematics and mathematics is one of three things that I've learned you can count on in Philosophy 101, the other two being deductive logic and definitions. SR is not the feverish dreams of madmen - they do have the mathematics to back it up.

More to the point, I trust physics because physics can explain how my computer works or how an airplane stays in the air or how to build a skyscraper or the other multitude of things in my life that I take for granted but for which physics has developed formulae to explain. Physics can even use those formulae to build better airplanes or safer skyscrapers or faster computers because the math works. You trust Physics daily, sometimes with your life, so why can't you accept SR, a branch of Physics?

The concepts can be admittedly difficult. The idea that time and space are not absolute goes against everything our daily experience says. But it works, in practice as well as in theory because the math works, even if you and I don't understand it.

However, if it helps, you can check out this website

In the example used to explain time dilation, there are two observers, a stationary to us observer and an observer in a car moving in relation to us and the stationary observer. At rest, a device is set up so that a light pulse bounces between two parallel mirrors. Speed = (distance) / time, so using the distance between the mirrors, and the speed of light, we know the time. Now imagine the same car moving and passes the stationary observer. The observer in the car wlll still get the same result finding for time because nothing has changed. But the stationary observer will see something else. To the stationary observer, the light pulse is seen to have traveled a greater distance, following along the hypotenuse of a triangle. Since the speed of light is invariable and we know the distance the light pulse traveled, we can calculate Time observed in the moving car. And to the stationary observer, time in the moving car will be slower in relation to the stationary observer's time even though time passes normally for the observer in the car. That is the Time Dilation Effect as I understand it at this point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 527 by Modulous, posted 09-16-2009 6:56 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 3475 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 538 of 687 (524676)
09-18-2009 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 536 by ICANT
09-18-2009 12:04 AM


Re: space and time
Wikipedia writes:

Spacetimes are the arenas in which all physical events take place — an event is a point in spacetime specified by its time and place...The basic elements of spacetime are events. In any given spacetime, an event is a unique position at a unique time.

What this means is that in addition to our standard XYZ coordinate system, we have another axis that defines time. Through our 4 axis coordinate system, we can place an event at a specific position at a specific time. For instance, on September 17th, 2009 at 4:15 am we can place you at a specific position on our XYZ coordinate system, probably wherever your bed is. That's spacetime (correct me if I'm mistaken.)

Time is the change along the When axis. Your movement through the physical space would seem to indicate that. At one moment, your finger is hitting the "Y" key in your key board, at another moment past that your finger is hitting the "o" key, at another moment past the second moment your finger is hitting the "u" key, at another moment past the third moment your finger is hitting the "'" key, and so on and so forth. As your hand moves across the keyboard, it has some velocity. Any movement you make has some velocity. Velocity is the measure of speed and direction. Speed is the measure of distance over time. If time did not exist, your hand would have no velocity. If your hand had no velocity, it could not move. But because your hand has velocity, at some future moment, you will have typed out the words, "You're wrong."

The XYZ coordinate system alone is incomplete. If change is a function of time, and time does not exist, then change doesn't exist. Let me put it to you this way:

Imagine that I place a Object Car somewhere in the XYZ plane. You argue there is no When axis. Fine, I'll grant you that. That means that there can never be a change in position for Object Car because a change in position is movement and movement requires velocity which requires time.

But, you might argue, perhaps the object can instantaneously move. Fine. Once again I place Object Car at point A (coordinates X=1,Y=1,Z=1.) Let's say every increment of 1 on the XYZ coordinate plane corresponds to an increment of 1 km. By that measure, X=1 is 1 km away from X=0 and X=10 is 9 km from X=1. Now I instantaneously move it to point B (coordinates X=500000,Y=1,Z=1.) This meant I just moved Object Car 499999 km in zero seconds, which is faster than the speed of light. Amazing! By ignoring time, you've just broken the speed of light. But it wouldn't matter if I only moved Object Car to point C (coordinates X=2,Y=1,Z=1) instead of point B - a change in position of 1 km in no time is still faster than a change in position of 300000km in one second.

That's my reasoning for why Time exists and why it is intricately connected to Space. We know things change in our Universe - our Universe is not static. Because things change in the physical world, we know that Time exists because change is a function of Time. Space and Time are linked to each other so we have spacetime. My explanation is probably simplistic and maybe flawed, so I hope others will expand and clarify where I went wrong.

What you might be arguing against is the arbitrariness of the units of measurements for Time. That is, you might be arguing why a second is one value and not another value. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe that because we have an arbitrary definition for a second which can be changed at our whim, Time doesn't exist. If this is the case, you are confusing the unit of measurement for a property with the property itself. If I used quagmires as a unit of measurement for Time and defined a quagmire as the change between Peter getting his first beer to Peter getting drunk, then that would be my unit of measurement for Time. The definitions we use for our units of measures for Time are arbitrary, but Time itself exist.

Think about it this way. People used to use various body parts as a standard of measure for a distance between two points. Quite arbitrary, wouldn't you agree? If it were true today that the definition of a foot is the size of a person's foot, then I would want my foot to be used when I acquired a length, area, or volume of something but a woman's foot to be used when I gave a length, area, or volume of something.

The arbitrariness of a unit of measurement doesn't indicate that the property itself does not exist. Length is a property. I have arbitrarily decided that one Joe is the distance between the top of Stewie's head to the bottom of his feet when he is standing straight. So I can now measure an object's length in Joes. But by your standard, as I perceive it, length cannot exist as a property because I have arbitrarily defined my unit of measurement, Joe. Not only can length not exist, but width and height as well since they all use the same unit of measurement, Joe. If length, width, and height do not exist, then our physical world does not exist. I don't know about you, but I am quite certain of my existence.

Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 536 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 12:04 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 551 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 11:18 AM Izanagi has responded

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 3475 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 558 of 687 (524773)
09-18-2009 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 551 by ICANT
09-18-2009 11:18 AM


Re: space and time
ICANT writes:

Time doesn't exist because it simply does not exist.

There is only now.

Man invented the concept of time. Then devised ways of counting time. So he could measure the length between events in existence/duration.

You are right, we only experience now. At any point in time that we exist, we consider that now. And I agree that change occurs in existence. My question to you is how do you express change without Time and can change occur without Time?

Time exists as a continuum. That means that all past nows and all future nows are bridged by now now. In order to measure any change, we would need a measurement of some past now that we experienced and compare that measurement to some now now we are experiencing. So can we agree that our past nows once were our now nows and our future nows will become our now nows? If you don't agree, explain how we can measure change in existence if there is no relationship between the past, present, and future.

Assuming you agree, I give you an example:

I take a photo of me now. In the photo of me are various devices measuring my height and weight. The photo is in color, so I can describe other characteristics about me as well.

Let 20 years worth of future nows pass by until I am experiencing some future now as now now. I take out the photo and through my measurements from the photo I am able to measure the changes that have taken place since I took that photo. So what?

Well, if you agree that Time is a continuum, then we can imagine Time as a coordinate along an axis, and your idea of change actually fits in very well with Time as a property of the Universe. When we think of spacetime, we are thinking about the standard Cartesian Coordinate System (XYZ) with an additional coordinate which we mark as T.

ICANT writes:

Events happen in existence/duration time only tells us the duration from one event to the next.


Wiki writes:

Spacetimes are the arenas in which all physical events take place—an event is a point in spacetime specified by its time and place

An event is a point specified by its time and place. What this means is that if I measure CarA at (x1=0,y1=0,z1=0,T1=0) and later measure CarA at (x2=10,y2=0,z2=0,T2=5), what I have done is taken the measurements of two events and the duration between. Let's define each increment along the xyz axes as 1 km and each increment along the T axis as 1 sec. Because I know the change in position and the duration between when I first measured to when I last measured, I can calculate Velocity as S = (x2-x1)/(t2-t1) = (10-0)/(5-0) = 10/5 or 2 km/s.

As you can see, all I did was take measurements of two events which were two points in spacetime. I was able to mark the change in in position in space and the duration between events because Time, in the concept of spacetime, is a coordinate. Changes takes place on the Cartesian Coordinate System. But in order to mark the changes, we need the Time coordinate to mark the length of each duration.

ICANT writes:

Change is a function in existence.


If change is a function of existence, then how do we express change? We use time to help us express change in existence. Agreed? What is Time? Well, if existence was static, we could not measure Time because we would not have a frame of reference to mark Time since no changes would occur, agreed? Then I could say that Time is a measurement of the duration between events given that a change has occurred between one event to the other, right?

If that is the case, and change is a function of our existence, that makes Time an essential part of our Universe. Before you nay-say, let me say this:

Occupying space is a function of our existence. We exist, therefore we occupy space along the XYZ axes. Because we occupy space on the Cartesian Coordinate System, we can measure length(x), width(y), and height(z). Length, width, and height are all properties of our existence. Without them, we couldn't occupy space and therefore couldn't exist in our Universe.

Change is a function of our existence. We exist, therefore we experience change along the Time axis. Because we experience change along the Time axis, we can measure the duration between events. Time is a part of our existence. Without it, we couldn't mark change and therefore couldn't exist in our Universe.

ICANT writes:

Time doesn't exist because it simply does not exist... Nothing has a concept of time except man.


A word of advice, don't use these arguments to show that Time does not exist. I can just as easily say:
1) God doesn't exist because it simply does not exist.
2) Nothing has a concept of God except man.
Would you believe this argument if I presented it to you? Your first statement is an example of petitio principii and your second statement is a non sequitur. Just because nothing else has a concept of time except for man doesn't mean Time can't exist. I could say the same of a hundred other concepts, like marriage. Nothing else has a concept of marriage between a man and a woman except man, therefore marriage between a man and a woman doesn't exist. Nothing else has a concept of bacteria except man, therefore bacteria don't exist. Etc.

Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 551 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 11:18 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 3475 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 560 of 687 (524777)
09-18-2009 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 555 by ICANT
09-18-2009 1:41 PM


Re: space and time
ICANT writes:

Why can't you have space without time?

Theoretically, you could have Space without Time. Our Universe isn't it. It's sort of a thought experiment. Space without Time would be the Cartesian Coordinate System without a Time coordinate (basically T=0). The problem is that change can't occur. A change along the xyz-axes must be coupled with a corresponding duration along the T-axis. Without a T-axis, all you would have is a three dimensional space with no movement whatsoever. Any change on the xyz-axes creates a new event and the duration between the events is what Time is.

That's why Time is a property of our Universe, because change occurs in our Universe, unless of course you can find a way to express change without Time. If you can, I would very much like to know.

Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 555 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 1:41 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 579 by ICANT, posted 09-21-2009 12:21 PM Izanagi has not yet responded

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 3475 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 571 of 687 (524897)
09-19-2009 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 564 by ICANT
09-18-2009 5:28 PM


Re: space and time
ICANT:

Change is movement in space. Movement, in this instance, means any increase or decrease in length, width, height, distance, direction. spin, etc. Any change requires Time in order to be expressed. But you argue Time does not exist. So I ask a question to you:

If Time does not exist, then we should be able to express change without the concept of Time. We currently use the formula Speed = distance/Time to plot the changes in position of a point along the xyz axes over a period of Time. But if you are correct and Time does not exist, then we should be able to express speed without using Time. That's my challenge to you - Express speed mathematically without using Time.

Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 5:28 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 577 by ICANT, posted 09-21-2009 11:53 AM Izanagi has responded

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 3475 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 590 of 687 (525193)
09-22-2009 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 577 by ICANT
09-21-2009 11:53 AM


Re: space and time
ICANT writes:

Explain how an apple changing from green to red is a movement in space.


Actually, it can be thought of movement of the individual molecules as different chemical processes take place to change the color of the apple from green to red. In order for the color change to take place, the molecules need to move, energy needs to be added, etc. In a world without time, nothing would move so there would be no chemical processes because molecules would not move.

ICANT writes:

Grandma is slow but she has existed a lot longer than you have.

That dude is traveling at a snail's pace.

But that guy in the red car is traveling as the cheetah runs.

You are as slow as a turtle.


What is a snail's pace. How fast does a cheetah run? How can you express those analogies without resorting to time? We know a cheetah runs fast because over time, a cheetah goes a very long distance. We know a snail is slow because over time, a snail goes a very short distance. Tell me how I can define a snail's pace or the speed of a cheetah without using, "over time."

ICANT writes:

When did man's concept of math begin to exist?


When did man's concept of God begin? Does that mean God doesn't exist?

I can appreciate you trying to put things in a philosophical light, but I saw a brilliant non sequitur strip that shows that sometimes you don't want to philosophical.

"There is no up or down, only the presence of where you are at the moment" is analogous to your contention that "there is no past or future, only the presence of when you are at the moment."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 577 by ICANT, posted 09-21-2009 11:53 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 591 by ICANT, posted 09-22-2009 5:38 PM Izanagi has responded

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 3475 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 602 of 687 (525349)
09-23-2009 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 591 by ICANT
09-22-2009 5:38 PM


Re: space and time
The duration of the event is what we call Time.

Stop arguing semantics. You argue that Time is a concept of man invented by man. Computers are a concept of man invented by man. Before man invented computers, they did not exist on Earth. That's your argument - A concept of man cannot exist prior to the invention of said concept. Therefore, according to your logic, since Time is an invention of man's, that means Time did not exist before man. Since light is a concept of man, light did not exist before man conceptualize light. Since gravity is a concept of man, gravity did not exist before man conceptualize gravity.

The point is just because something has been conceptualized by man doesn't mean it didn't exist prior to the conceptualization. If you argue that a concept doesn't exist prior to being conceptualized, then tell me if gravity existed prior to Newton conceptualizing it.

ICANT writes:

With the first created life form, the first man that walked and talked with Him.


I didn't know you were that old. Of course, you were there to witness this event. And don't tell me it was in a book that you read. Because another book I've read tells me there's a school of magic located in England that you can only get to by running into a column at the train station. Of course, And don't tell me the book is old and that's why we should give it credence, because the Epic of Gilgamesh is pretty old too and they talk of ancient gods as well. Age does not equal truth.

The way you argue reminds me of this non sequitur strip. You are the caveman standing in the rain saying it isn't raining, and when someone else asks why are you wet, you ask them to define wet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 591 by ICANT, posted 09-22-2009 5:38 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 605 by ICANT, posted 09-23-2009 10:08 AM Izanagi has responded

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 3475 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 621 of 687 (525854)
09-25-2009 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 605 by ICANT
09-23-2009 10:08 AM


Re: space and time
ICANT writes:

Light is made of particles and waves. Source Therefore light can not be a concept of man.

What is time made of?


Does God have a physical existence? Because you have just argued God into a physical existence. I'll connect the dots for you using your own arguments:

1)

ICANT writes:

Light is made of particles and waves. Source Therefore light can not be a concept of man.

What is time made of?

2)

ICANT writes:

Time doesn't exist because it simply does not exist.

3)

ICANT writes:

Existence is all those little atoms and waves.

My logic is a bit rusty, so bear with me. If there's any part of the proof you need clarification from in your own words, let me know.

The premises, which are in your own words, have the conclusion that a concept of man cannot exist in this Universe because it does not have a physicality to it. Anything that is not a concept of man exists and existence in this Universe means anything that is composed of a physical substance.

With me so far? Good.

1) Anything that exists in this Universe is composed of a physical substance.

2) God exists, which is what you believe.

The conclusion to draw from this is that because God exists in this Universe, God is composed of a physical substance. Essentially, God is a being roaming the Cosmos and that if we were somehow able to search the Universe, one day we would find God.

1)

ICANT writes:

Genesis 2:7 says God breathed life into a form and it became a living being. Thus life produced life.

Logical conclusion is that God is alive.

1) God is alive

2) God is a physical being in our Universe

3)

ICANT writes:

It is a fact non life has never produced life

4)

ICANT writes:

Scientific facts require that there be a life form to produce the first life.

Using your own words, you have just argued that something must have created God. Remember, you argued that in order to exist, something must have a physicality to it. God exists, so God has a physicality. You have argued that God is alive because life must arise from life. And you have argued that life cannot arise from non-life. God is alive, has physical substance in our Universe, and is subject to the same rules of our Universe. One of the rules you argued for our Universe is that life cannot arise from non-life. My question to you is this:

What created God? How do you explain this apparent flaw in your thinking?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 605 by ICANT, posted 09-23-2009 10:08 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 630 by ICANT, posted 09-28-2009 11:25 AM Izanagi has responded

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 3475 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 624 of 687 (525946)
09-25-2009 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 623 by greyseal
09-25-2009 7:24 AM


Re: space and time
greyseal writes:

no, what is gravity MADE of?

You don't know?

Can't you hold a cup of gravity?

GRAVITY DOESN'T EXIST!!!

how can you not get this?


You're wrong. Gravity is the force of angels pushing down on us. Haven't you heard of Intelligent Falling? Without those angels, we would be floating off the earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 623 by greyseal, posted 09-25-2009 7:24 AM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 625 by greyseal, posted 09-25-2009 11:41 AM Izanagi has responded

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 3475 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 626 of 687 (526008)
09-25-2009 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 625 by greyseal
09-25-2009 11:41 AM


Re: space and time
My God! ICANT is a genius of epic proportions. He has debunked centuries of misguided "scientific" thought. My eyes are open - I realize now that Science is the Devil's work. I should thank ICANT for saving my soul.

Since Time is not made of physical particles, it is clear that Time does not exist. How could I have been so blind? Anything that exists must be made of particles or waves.

I know now that my soul exists, and not something to believe it exists, because it is a physical thing which I can touch even though I have never touched one, never seen one, and no one can tell me what it is made of, but ICANT says it exists. And ICANT says that all things that exist must be made of particles and/or waves so I can one day hope to be able to touch a soul.

And Space doesn't exist because Space isn't made of particles or waves. After all, space is the emptiness between particles, but ICANT says that anything that exists must be made of particles or waves. Thus space cannot exist because space is not composed of particles or waves. Therefore, there is no emptiness between particles.

And ICANT says the Bible is true. In the bible, snakes can talk. All those times I have heard snakes hissing, I never knew that they were actually speaking a language. How deaf I was! I'll have to apologize to the next snake I meet and ask it how its day was. I hope snakes can forgive me for ignoring them when they were talking to me.

And since Science is not trustworthy, I cannot bring myself to fly in a plane built by science. Next time I need to fly, I will fly in a plane built on faith that God will lift the plane into the air, move it across the globe, and set it down where I need to be. After all, if Physics is wrong about Relativity, despite all observations supporting the theory, what else can it be wrong about it?! It might be wrong about why boats float in water or why steel is a better building material for skyscrapers than wood. From now on, I will trust in God that the wooden skyscraper I will have built will stand as strong and tall as any steel skyscraper, a testament to the deception of Science.

Quickly all! Spread the word!

Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 625 by greyseal, posted 09-25-2009 11:41 AM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 627 by greyseal, posted 09-25-2009 2:44 PM Izanagi has not yet responded

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 3475 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 631 of 687 (526565)
09-28-2009 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 630 by ICANT
09-28-2009 11:25 AM


Re: space and time
ICANT writes:

Second the creator of the universe is not subject to the rules He made.
Third since He is not of this universe He is not bound by the laws He wrote for this universe.


Then why not remake the Universe. After Adam and Eve ate the apple, why not just start from scratch again and create two people who will obey when God says don't eat the apple from the tree of knowledge?

The standard answer is that doing that would be a violation of free will. But if, as you say, God is not subject to God's own laws, then God can break the rule of free will whenever God wants. If God is not subject to God's own rules, then God's promises aren't really worth anything, are they? After all, promises are just self-imposed rules one makes to do or not do something.

Why hasn't God created a better world with more obedient followers and why should God's promises have any weight at all if God is not subject to God's own rules and laws?

And don't tell me God has a plan, because if God is omnipotent, God can definitely create a world better than ours. If you do argue that this is the best world God can imagine, then tell me what does having babies die, women raped, people murdered in the most gruesome ways possible, losing a cherished family - tell me how all the pain and suffering in this world fit into God's grand plan?

Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 630 by ICANT, posted 09-28-2009 11:25 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 633 by ICANT, posted 09-28-2009 12:53 PM Izanagi has responded

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 3475 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 639 of 687 (526664)
09-29-2009 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 633 by ICANT
09-28-2009 12:53 PM


Re: remake the universe
ICANT writes:

He did remake the earth after the first man and woman ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

You find that account recorded in Genesis 1:2 through Genesis 2:3.


You didn't answer my question. I asked why God didn't just simply create another Adam and another Eve. An Adam and Eve v.1.1, if you will. And also, God did not recreate the world. God kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden and punished them for eating the apple. If I'm wrong, show me the passage where it says God recreated everything after Adam and Eve ate the apple.

ICANT writes:

God didn't mess the world up. Man did that by the choices he has made. God created a perfect universe in Genesis 1:1.

The only way He could make you more obedient is to take away your free will. Which He will not do.


Why not? God sees the suffering of the people in the world. If God is a good god, and if part of being being good means doing something to ease the suffering of others, then God could easily just wave a hand and create a world with no suffering. God could easily create humans who make the right choice all the time, right? So why not just start over and create humans who always make the right choice?

You say God will not take away free will. Why? What is it about free will that prevents God from taking it away?

ICANT writes:

No God does not have a plan.

God stands at the beginning and views the end as is satisfied with the results.


Then I am wholly unimpressed by your God. Once again, tell me why God does nothing to eliminate the suffering of the people God created. If you argue that God won't take away free will, tell me for what reasons God won't take away free will.

ICANT writes:

Sure He can and did. God created a perfect universe man messed things up.

But God will create the universe you think He should have already created. It will be inhabited by people from this universe that chose to believe in Him and trust Him and follow Him.

In that universe there will be no pain, sickness, death, sorrow, and no one who has not accepted God's offer of a free full pardon.


Then why doesn't God do that now? We know God has no problem wiping out vast populations of people who sin, free will be damned. Why not wave a hand and create that world now?

ICANT writes:

All the things you talk about are inflicted by mankind not God.


Then why hasn't God remade man into something better, a human v.2? God can do it, so what is stopping God? Is God so sadistic that the sight of people in pain and suffering is pleasurable?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 633 by ICANT, posted 09-28-2009 12:53 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 3475 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 658 of 687 (527022)
09-30-2009 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 656 by cavediver
09-30-2009 2:30 AM


Re: Time changes
You know, I was going to write a response to Guiri about time dilation and how the math works, but I'm not sure if it would be worth it.

cavediver writes:

It doesn't matter how good the bullshit


The problem is that many people don't think it is bullshit. They believe it and that's a tremendous problem. I don't know how it is in the UK and the leaders across the pond, but in the US, people are still pushing for Creationism in Science, and some of those people are in charge.

10% of Americans STILL believe the sun revolves around the earth! In the health-care debate, many Americans believe that under a government run health care system, the government will form "death panels" to determine who lives and who dies.

You hear about JFK and his challenge to Americans to put a man on the moon and in eight years we landed a man on the moon. Now, in eight years, we can't even build a building to memorialize those who lost their lives due to the attacks of 9/11.

Sorry, just had to get that off my chest.

For you Guiri, welcome, and I hope the light of knowledge will drive away the darkness of ignorance.

Our observations of the real world support the mathematical models of Relativity and the idea that gravity and velocity have an effect on the passage of time. I had a whole post laid out to explain it to you in rudimentary mathematics, but I'm not sure if you would consider it. If you are willing to, I'd be happy to share it with you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 656 by cavediver, posted 09-30-2009 2:30 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 659 by Guiri, posted 09-30-2009 3:23 AM Izanagi has not yet responded
 Message 660 by greyseal, posted 09-30-2009 5:50 AM Izanagi has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019