Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
I'm using Mozillatm, which is the source of Netscapetmhee hee.
It (or they) wasn't even grammatical. The sentence doesn't parse as written.
What started the whole process of existence, whether it be inanimate or animate?
Causality presupposes the existence of time, but the Big Bang does not. The Big Bang doesn't require a cause--indeed, it's philosophically meaningless to talk of it as having one--as it marks the beginning of time itself. Asking what came before the Big Bang is like asking what is south of the south pole; there geometrically is no such place. Time exists in the universe; the universe does not exist in time.
Christianity does answer that, God.
Please. The statement "God exists" presupposes that existence exists. You and only shifting the question to, "Why is there God and not just nothing?"
Why take Existence was created by God as an axiom?
That doesn't parse, either.
Is your hatred of God so fierce that youll not even admit the possibility that he does exist?
What are you talking about? I haven't even addressed the topic.
From admitting the existence of God, it does not follow that any particular definition of God is true, or that the words in any particular book are necessarily the words of God.
Praise the Lord, you are searching for him.
the words in any particular book are necessarily the words of God
Any book that preaches hatered, is not the word of the true God.
Asserting that God created existence simply pushes the problem of existence bach one verbal layer, while adding exactly nothing to understanding.
Understanding is there if youll try to open your eyes to the possibility.
This means one chance in the number one followed by 340 million zeros.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. You might want to do a more careful job of plagiarism in the future.
But all of these numbers are irrelevant, because A) nobody has ever seriously claimed that all of this just fell together one day, which is all you are even attempting to refute and B) we can observe very large molecules spontaneously assembling which would similarly be "ruled out" by such a calculation, so clearly the entire calculation scheme is fundamentally flawed.
Semantics my foot--those who practically live in the fallacy of the excluded middle have no grounds for complaining about their deponents taking care with words. Stop, for instance, throwing the word "proof" around as if it meant something significant to you and I will quit complaining.
Well many things have been scientifically proven beyond doubt.
Nothing in science is proven, much less proven beyond doubt, as a matter of scientific principle affirmed by most any scientist you care to ask. Scientific principles are stories, not things to be proved.
One is gravity which we have been discussing. Gravity is a fact of life, an indubitable fact of life beyond denial.
Once again, the clown prince of the fallacy of the excluded middle squeaks up.
You have no deductive proof that gravity will still be working tomorrow. If you had, you would have offered it up long ago. It is simply something we have high confidence in because, well, because we do. Just as we have high confidence in the notion that animals procreate, not all of then survive to have issue, and the resulting population reflects the selection pressure. We have less high confidence, but high confidence none the less, that the same thing was happening 2 billion years ago, just as, and for exactly the same reasons, we have high confidence that the universal law of gravity is UNIVERSAL. In both cases, despite the fact that the only available evidence is millions of years old.
Does time itself exist if theres no one around to measure it?
The entire problem revolves around one thing and one thing only, Faith, if you have it, no explanation is necessary, if you dont, then no manner of explanation will matter.
Ive enjoyed the conversation but, I realize youll never understand. Ill add you to my extremely long list of those to pray for.
I did before I learned that it was a null concept. Do you ever wonder what lies south of the south pole? Why not?
My own two cents here. According to our present knowledge, whatever may have existed before the BB -- if anything -- was crushed to plasma; therefore all information about any prior state of the universe is gone. So, there being no evidence which can, even in principle, be examined, the question of "before the BB" cannot be explored by science. It's wide open for theology, however.
If instead you spent that time studying, you still would have a shot at understanding.
Crushed to plasma? You mean sort of like being frozen and compressed into a gas??
The idea of having all the mass in the universe compressed to a point and then having it somehow or other bang its way out of that is ludicrous on the face of it even without attempts at injecting Mickey Mantlisms into cosmology. The one guy I know of who's ever had anything intelligent to say on the topic is Halton Arp.
Them's your words, bucko; it's in the question. I'll settle for the common definition of "conclusion" if you don't mind.
I asked what you meant by "conclusion" if you do not mean "proof" and I'm still asking.
Read thee, then, to the end of all posts. And lo! Ye shall find thy questions answered, and thyself less a fool, you putz.
Yeah continental drift alright, like your drift away from the subject.
The subject, oh distracted one, was why we don't put a big red label stamp on each page of our introductory micro-biology material in classrooms saying "Danger, Danger Will Robinson, theory ahead!".
Have you been taking lessons from Gore3000 in using Attention Deficit Disorder as a rhetorical tool?
Every once in a while something pops up on these threads that meke them worth reading.
Incidently, reading these threads is much faster and easier since I activated the blue text filter on my browser.
If someone had posted ahead of you, the post whose text was 1777 would not have matched the enumeration of the post. Would have been compelled to issue a correction, if that had happened? If so, how would you have done it?
Here, I'll show you. I'll assume this is going to be post 1779, and assume the rule is that the post number has to be worked into the text. Here goes.
There is no "all that energy." There total energy is zero, which is really nothing to get excited about.
What do you mean by "null"? If you wish to introduce new terms, you should define them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.