The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Women in the Christian church

Women in the Christian church

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 58
  7. 59
  8. 60
  9. Page 61
  10. 62
  11. All
Hi Pericles,

This seems to be fizzling a little.

“But I think we are no nearer to understanding the differences...”

That seems to be the crux of our current discussion. We are nearer to that understanding.

The “they” in the God of Islam is meant to be the God and I inadvertently used poor Grammar or perhaps it was Freudian considering, that they worship our God, the God of Abraham but just don't consider God is a trinity and thus a they.

”Not so unique, really. Think Plato, and the Theory of Forms.”

Unique for a God. Plato’s expectation pointed to a greater reality but not to a specific God. It is an interesting thought that Plato’s musings could have led in the same direction.

”In my view, it was rather naughty of Paul to claim that he, alone, had the answer.”

He did have a rather unique experience and he did hang out with people who witnessed a man come back to life so naughty might not be the best choice of description.

“Of course "some things" have a discernible cause.”

Thanks for the clarification.

”But if you mean "do I agree that everything has a cause", I would have to say no, not necessarily.

For example, if everything has a cause, your God would need one also. Which leaves you with the problem to wrestle with, "what caused God?"

But if you accept as I do that it is possible for some things (including God, should one exist) just to "be", then you must also accept that it is possible for the universe itself just to "be".”

In between those possibilities is the idea that everything but God has a cause. In other words things (other than God) have causes but there can’t be an infinite regress and an uncaused cause must exist at the end of the chain. I don’t see the need to multiply the uncaused cause (although without acceptance of an omnipotent creator as the uncaused cause much multiplication is necessary). But yes I believe I understand what you are saying.

Have a great day.
Posted by mjpb, Wednesday, 27 April 2011 4:05:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Welcome back AJ,

“And that is that nothing physical has ever been shown to be anything other than a new arrangement of pre-existing parts.”

”This is why the ‘first cause’ argument falls down at its premise; we don’t know that these pre-existing parts ever “began to exist” (as William Lane Craig would put it) at all.”

Of course right now we have a lot of support for the Big Bang theory indicating that those preexisting parts did begin to exist and nothing but hypotheses to take things further back. In other words the only evidence available points to a beginning for the universe. I hope that this is responsive to what Craig is saying because you expressed it so briefly for a big issue.

“Something really doesn’t add up here. That’s for sure!”

It is nice to be noticed.
Posted by mjpb, Wednesday, 27 April 2011 4:09:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mjpb,

The big bang theory does not say that matter was created at the moment of the expansion, but that everything was condensed into a singularity before it expanded. Note too that I said “known” so if there is a hypothesis that I’ve overlooked, then bear in mind that that hypotheses cannot yet be considered “knowledge” and so my point still stands.

<<In other words the only evidence available points to a beginning for the universe.>>

No, it doesn’t. And until we discover a new way of investigating reality, your assertion that the universe had a beginning may very well only ever remain that - an assertion.

Finally, just to clarify, what I was subtly trying to convey when I said, “Something doesn’t add up here”, is the fact that your claim that you “didn’t have enough faith to remain an atheist” is shown to not be true given that this “evidence” that you - according to your claims - required faith in order to reject, amounts to nothing more than fundamental misunderstandings coupled with fallacies in logic. As is being demonstrated as we go.

So unfortunately, we are still left with no evidence.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 27 April 2011 4:58:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, more importantly, I meant to say that your claim that you “didn’t have enough faith to remain an atheist” is shown to not be true in the fact that you so readily, willingly and unquestioningly accepted arguments for the existence of god that only an already pre-conditioned believer would accept; arguments that only those who are desperate to believe will accept and not bother to verify the validity of.

If what you claim really were true, though, then it would be that you didn't have common sense to remain an atheist, not faith.

Anyone who exercised an ounce of sceptisicsm (and came to their beliefs through reason as you also claimed to have) would have quite easily found that every argument you're presenting has been discredited even more times than it has been presented.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 27 April 2011 5:26:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips,

Lemaître I believe originated the theory that attracted that nickname. He described his theory as "the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation". The Wikipedia article opines that the present state of play is that due to limitations in evidence gathering nothing can be said about the origin but merely the evolution. Perhaps that is the way the theory has evolved? You introduce the idea of condensing. Where do you get that from? Is that a current version?

Since Lemaître proposed it and much evidence has supported it I am inclined to hold to his version but I can see that alternative arguments are possible.
Posted by mjpb, Wednesday, 27 April 2011 6:22:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mjpb,

I AM referring to Lemaître’s version of the big bang. Your problem here is that you wrongly assume that the “beginning” (of the big bang) was the ultimate beginning; that nothing existed before that and that matter was actually created at that particular moment.

"The Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation" was merely a description, not a scientific explanation. For it to be a scientific explanation, Lemaître would have had to demonstrate that the universe was in fact “created” - something no one has ever been able to do.

I wasn’t trying to introduce the concept of “condensing” (that word may have popped into my head because of the hypothesis that the universe is a continual series of expansions and collapses), I was simply referring to the hot dense state that we are unable to know what came before (as of yet) and that you wrongly assume was the moment when matter was “created”, or think that that is what the big bang theory asserts.

But even if you were right about all this, your argument would still be nothing more than the ‘argument from ignorance’ and therefore, fallacious.

Leaving us completely empty in the ‘evidence’ department yet again.

Like I said: arguments for the existence of god that only an already pre-conditioned believer would accept.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 27 April 2011 7:09:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 58
  7. 59
  8. 60
  9. Page 61
  10. 62
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy