Replies

It is interesting that you would attack me or xzins on the basis that we are dealing with the facts of physics as stated by Einstein and Hawking. Then you imply that since Hawkins can use the physical data and scientific information to form some philosophical argument against the existence of God, that therefore the Scientific data must be science fiction and xzins and I are arguing points based upon fiction.

The fact of the matter is that the theory of relativity has been confirmed in scientific experiments. So the fact of the matter is that we have to deal with the theory of relativity as a fact and then deal with the theological implications.

I obviously disagree with Hawking's philosophical and theological implications. To me the theory of relativity confirms my belief in God inhabiting eternity and gives me insight into what that means and why God would have identified himself the title of "I AM".

Your attempt to poison the well by linking my theories about God's nature to Hawking's theories of God's non-existence is a "guilt by association" logical fallacy combined with a false analogy and a Non Sequitur. "Since Atheists believe the sky is blue and they believe this proves that there is no God, therefore anyone who believes the sky is blue must be an atheist. Jean believes the sky is blue, therefore Jean is an atheist."

I had assumed you were above that. I'm not so sure anymore. But when you resort to irrelevant logical fallacies to prove your point, you provide evidence that you have no point to make.

BTW, prior to your post, I don't think I've never read even a word from a Steven Hawking book.

In terms of physics, einstein's relativity is pretty much standard doctrine. Been some refinements, but basically we now know that the speed of light is a major dividing point in terms of space, time, mass, energy.

Now, if these are physical laws then they are laws that God created. Therefore, His moral and spiritual truth and information regarding nature and creation and even about God's own nature might touch on these physical laws at some point or other.

All a man can do is ask the question and then see if the bible gives any insight. If not, then fine. Is so, then be humble, accept it as bible, and then drive on.

"It is interesting that you would attack me or xzins on the basis that we are dealing with the facts of physics as stated by Einstein and Hawking."

You are dealing with speculations. Physics has not made any claim of how the time-less God relates to the time-bound "not God". In fact, Physics intentionally does not deal with the question of "God" at all.

I could care less about the physics. I'm just noting you are interpreting Scripture in the light of Pseudo-Philosophical Speculations.

"Then you imply that since Hawkins can use the physical data and scientific information to form some philosophical argument against the existence of God, that therefore the Scientific data must be science fiction and xzins and I are arguing points based upon fiction."

No, I did not "imply" that at all. I never exactly said why I posted the quote from Hawkings book. But -for the record- I posted it simply to note that a man who has a grasp on Quantum Physics far more than either you or I do has used the area of science you are usuing to postulate that there is no God.

What I was "implying" was that you are attempting to interpret Scripture in the light of your speculations from an area of science you know next to nothing about (when it comes down to it, you haven't really thought your speculations through that well) -an area of science that the experts have used to "prove" their idea that God does not exist.

"To me the theory of relativity..."

What???? The "Theory" of relativity???? Just a few paragraphs before you told me that you were "dealing with FACTS of physics as stated by Einstein and Hawking(s)".

Like I said, Marlowe, you haven't really thought this through very well.

"Your attempt to poison the well by linking my theories about God's nature to Hawking's theories of God's non-existence is a "guilt by association" logical fallacy combined with a false analogy and a Non Sequitur."

Your attempt to claim I am "poinsoning the well" is a "straw man" as I am not attempting to play the "guilt by association" game at all.

I was, as I have already stated, attempting to show you that your speculations are indeed that -SPECULATIONS- since a man who is far more qualified than either you or me are to speak on this issue has used this science to conclude that there is not a God.

If, as you have claimed, we are dealing with the "FACTS of physics", I will then ask you to tell me just where Hawkings got it wrong. Where in the logical prosession of his "FACTS" did he make a mistake?

Jean

(and you still haven't answered my questions)