Re: In the beginning?

On Oct 23, 9:36 pm, Smoley <smo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 23, 7:20 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Oct 23, 6:30 pm, Smoley <smo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 23, 5:30 pm, Cory Albrecht <coryalbre...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Smoley wrote, on 2008-10-23 16:54:

On Oct 22, 11:39 pm, Boikat<boi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
On Oct 22, 4:25 pm, Smoley<smo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:

On Oct 22, 3:46 pm, James Beck<j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
In article<043a0ea5-5138-4984-9a77-4dc2af6a0166
@t41g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, smo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
So, basically, you have no idea, but it wasn't my sky fairy.  Thank
you.
I suppose that I don't have any credentials, which is a shame, because
I worship the ground that people with credentials walk upon. It is my
dream to sway the ignorant masses one day with my credentials!
Everyone wants to be an Atheist, but no one wants to think about it
too hard.  Atheists are too trusting for one thing, they believe
everything they read, as long as it's not in the Bible. They really
shouldn't believe everything they here, especially from some of these
fruit cake scientists.
Using quotes from a book of myths is not any type of answer.
I covered this under the lightening bolts thing in the previous post.
Yes, calling it the book of myths is a great argument on your part.
Then let's see your scientifically testable evidence that your "god"
didit.

Hehe, is everything scientifically testable?  Can you think of one
thing that is not??

For example, do you immediately cease to exist after your body dies?
Are we just bodies? Nothing else?
Do you know what happened before the big bang? Have scientists been
able to reproduce life from non-life(getting infinitely close is still
a "no").  Can we know what form of animal represented the human race
85 million years ago?  Have we ever tested time travel?  What number
comes after infinity?
Do you really think that "testable" is the only criteria for
believing?

If you want to say that something is true and factual, yes, you need to
have supporting evidences.

So you have two choices. Either you have to admit that you have no
evidence that God exists or you have to show us evidence that other
people can test an confirm.

God created life, God created time, God created matter which exists
purely by His own energy.

I don't have to prove that, just like I don't have to prove that there
was no time before the Big Bang.
Can you prove that there was no time before the Big Bang?
Can you prove the existence of the "God" particle? or do you just
accept it's existence based on the influence or affect that it has on
other particles? Can you actually see it?

Can you prove that God did not create life?  Can you prove that all
things can be proven by testing?

No. Some things we can't know now; some things we may never know. I'm
cool with that. You can't prove the existence of God; science can't
disprove the existence of God. Where's the problem? You choose to
believe in things for which there is no physical evidence. That's fine
with me; I choose not to.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that things exist that you do not know
about.
And it doesn't make any sense to disregard something just because you
can't understand it.

But don't ever think that your belief is some satisfactory substitute
for science when we're dealing with the real world. Your beliefs are
fine in your unreal world; the real world is enough for me.

You assume that my beliefs are a substitute for science.  Actually, my
belief is supportive of science.
The real world is relative to your perspective. The real world has not
always existed as you know it.  Certainly the birth of the universe,
as described by Big Bang theorists, was not a normal phenomenom from
our perspective. Most of the laws that we observe to exist have not
always existed, unless they are eternal, and this does not fit into
our reality either.
You would like to think that you define reality, but you may be wrong.
In reality, reality defines you.  It may not be your perspective that
is correct.
Certainly the porssibility of "before the Big Bang" is not a reality,
and neither is something made of nothing, but what if it is reality?

Your belief is much weaker and is limited to only what you can see.
You should expand your horizon by exploring beyond the observable.
After all, what you can see, may only give you an illusion of reality.

There are probably an infinite number of possible realities that God
could have placed us in, this is just one of them.


Since you did not answer my question, I checked to see if you answered
it elsewhere, but could not find any answer easily. So, I'll try
another question in the context of your comment above.

The one of many "possible realities" that nearly all science-literate
theists, and even some anti-evolutionists, agree fits the evidence is
that God created the Universe ~14 billion years ago, Earth 4.5 - 4.6
BY ago, and life on Earth 3.5 - 4 BY ago, and that humans share common
ancestors with most or all other species. And they conclude this
regardless of whether they think that "natural processes" are
sufficient to cause some biological changes. Those who think that
"natural processes" are in sufficient are lately quite careful to
avoid specifying *where* and *when* nonnatural processes were
required, but that's another story for another time.

As you know, most anti-evolutionists not only have a problem with
"natural processes" but assert that the evidence points to God (or
other Creator(s)) having used *another* of the "possible realities,"
such as humans being created independently of other lineages, and of
alternate chronology of origin of Universe, Earth, First Life, Modern
Humans etc.

Please enlighten us as to your best guesses as to which "possible
reality" best fits the evidence. Be as specific and detailed as
possible. That doesn't take much effort at all: If you think
mainstream science is correct (aside from the "naturalism" issue),
simply say so. Same if you think that AIG, RTB, Raelians, etc. have
the best estimates.


(snip)


*snip*
Smoley

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... the planets are also evidence and I am not *there*. ... And the history of science gives a number of people who ... be consistent with true descriptions of reality. ... "science" to invade historical and religious events. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: "Measuring" the spiritual with science.
    ... The material form of reality is subject to the various ... modern science has concentrated entirely ... In either case the word "spiritual existence" does not have a good ... scientists will measure, that science and religion agree and that ...
    (soc.religion.bahai)
  • Re: Science and Faith (Serious)
    ... Both are based entirely on faith with one claiming superiority over the other on the basis of so called science. ... There is nothing whatsoever that either can claim as real evidence other than snippets extrapolated into a belief system. ... No evidence exists corroborating the existence of God, the Garden of Eden, the Tree of Knowledge, or the talking snake thingy. ... What science does not do is nail up a "this is how it is" story and then burn people at the stake for daring to deny it. ...
    (soc.culture.irish)
  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... >>> No. Does not the existence of our free will and conscious mind give ... >> established by science. ... why is this an argument in favour of there being a God? ... > Indirect evidence which helps infer the existence of God? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... >>> established by science. ... even though you might never be able to show evidence supporting ... to handle many verifiably real aspects of our existence. ... science can't handle God either. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading