To: Doctor Stochastic
Special pleading. You did not offer an answer at all. How did something outside the universe come into being? On what scientific basis or evidence can you assume an ultimate being would be subject to the physical laws of the universe that He created?
345 posted on
05/03/2003 4:03:24 PM PDT by
Dataman
To: Dataman
On what scientific basis or evidence can you assume an ultimate being would be subject to the physical laws of the universe that He created? Assume? Assume? Do you even understand the stupidity of your own question?
352 posted on
05/03/2003 4:08:12 PM PDT by
balrog666
(When in doubt, tell the truth. - Mark Twain)
To: Dataman; Doctor Stochastic
On what scientific basis or evidence can you assume an ultimate being would be subject to the physical laws of the universe that He created? On what logical or rhetorical basis do you get to shift the burden of proof away from the person making the original argument?
356 posted on
05/03/2003 4:13:31 PM PDT by
general_re
(Ask me about my vow of silence!)
To: Dataman
On what scientific basis or evidence can you assume an ultimate being would be subject to the physical laws of the universe that He created? Assuming, of course, that an ultimate being outside our universe actually created the universe. There is mud outside my window, but as far as I know it only required water and dirt. It may be man made mud or maybe it is just raining, but its existence alone is not proof one way or the other.
I would point out that, knowing so little about how our own universe actually works, we have no basis to assume that something is or isn't possible within our own universe (though this is the strongest claim we CAN make in a Bayesian sense). Or what laws do and don't apply both inside and out. Or whether it was intentionally created or a side-effect of some other activity by an ultimate being. Or whether a ultimate being exists just outside our universe; for all we know the closest thing to an ultimate being lives two universe abstractions up and isn't really even cognizant of our universe underneath the one He is aware of. Basically, all we have is a Star Trek episode with better writing.
To: Dataman
Your hypothesis of an ultimate turtle still doesn't answer the question. How did such a being come into existence?
Nor have you demonstrated the existence of any being not subject to the laws of the universe. All so-far observed beings are subject the laws of the universe.
397 posted on
05/03/2003 8:31:19 PM PDT by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson