Posted on 10/24/2009 4:02:17 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
To answer your question, if there is a God,we do not know where He came from.
There is a logical necessity for the existence of an Eternal Someone...or there would be nothing now. From our perspective, everything has to have a beginning. But there has to be something that has always existed...and that can't be matter or energy. Eternal matter would violate the laws of Thermodynamics. If there had ever been absolutely nothing, there would still be absolutely nothing...because something can't come from nothing. Something has to exist to create something else.
“Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
Actually, it is the fatal limitation of the creation rationalizers that they cannot conceive of evolution as being the “Divine Foot in the door”.
First let’s address the misconception that the evolutionary theory addresses the origin of life.
That is quite simply that is not true, the evolutionary theory only addresses how life has changed since its inception.
“It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life” (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th edition, 1882. p. 421).
Second stating that we do not know something is not the same as deciding that it is too complicated for us to understand so that proves that God did it.
You did however did point out the logical flaw in your own assertion with these two statements.
“why does God have to come from anywhere? ...because something can't come from nothing”
And lastly science is not based on faith; it is based on empirical evidence. Currently there is absolutely no doubt among reputable scientist that the empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports the evolutionary theory.
So I will ask you again if as you state “Something has to exist to create something else”. How was God created?
I wonder what their FR screen names are.....
>>“Where did God come from?”
Where did the big bang come from?<<
Still being researched. Science is not making the absolute statement. Science is a tool we use to determine things, not an answer to all things.
So are you willing to say you are still researching where God came from?
Science can only labor inside a materialistic world. So, in a snide way, the author states that.
But ideas such as science producing “counter intuitive results” just bespeaks someone who lacks imagination and perspective.
This seems to contradict your statement in post 66,
"Science is not making the absolute statement. Science is a tool we use to determine things, not an answer to all things."
Incidentally, wouldn't you think that the accuracy of your statement is affected by who one is attempting to view the results / predictions of science? I.e., for science to be "absolutely true" one ought to insist on no supernatural; for science to be "hey, we don't know for sure, but it works pretty well in the meantime" Deism or theism with only rare miracles, which make sure to keep themselves out of the lab would be sufficient, for "we'll we're building models to generalize observations based on limited observations under controlled conditions, but make no claims to TRUTHTM", then the supernatural doesn't affect things too much.
So, in a snide way, the author states that.
It came across as more than just snideness to me -- more like Lucifer in the beginning of Paradise Lost:
"But what if he our conqueror (whom I now
Of force believe almighty, since no less
Than such could have o'erpow'red such force intelligence as ours)
Have left us this our spirit and strength entire
Strongly to suffer and support our pains
That we may so suffice his vengeful ire"
Of course, your mileage may vary. Close cover before striking, offer not valid in Alaska, Hawaii, or Puerto Rico. Void where prohibited, consult your doctor if you experience an erection lasting more than four hours and you are not in bed with Bar Refaeli or Marisa Miller when this occurs.
Cheers!
Or someone who is too-heavily grounded in classical physics, Road Runner cartoons excepted.
Cheers!
>>Or someone who is too-heavily grounded in classical physics, Road Runner cartoons excepted.<<
Uh, OK.
Cheers to you as well.
It’s safe to “scientists “to go ape over creation theory opponents. Not so much with their Global Warming fruit cakes.
>>Science can only labor inside a materialistic world.
This seems to contradict your statement in post 66,
“Science is not making the absolute statement. Science is a tool we use to determine things, not an answer to all things.”<<
No, the fact science labors within a materialistic world does not say that it knows all about that world.
Incidentally, wouldn’t you think that the accuracy of your >>statement is affected by who one is attempting to view the results / predictions of science? I.e., for science to be “absolutely true” one ought to insist on no supernatural; for science to be “hey, we don’t know for sure, but it works pretty well in the meantime” Deism or theism with only rare miracles, which make sure to keep themselves out of the lab would be sufficient, for “we’ll we’re building models to generalize observations based on limited observations under controlled conditions, but make no claims to TRUTHTM”, then the supernatural doesn’t affect things too much.<<
You lurch into the philosophical, which, although fun, is off-track from my main point. There is no process in science, no theory, no mechanism, no place for “here a supernatural being does something.”
The supernatural as a wrapper around science is perhaps a valid pursuit or concept, but that is also and completely in the realm oh philosophy.
AGW is not TToE.
AGW is a brand new fad with little or no data to back itself up. It has a few thousand well-paid shills, many who are not even life scientists. It meets none of the criteria for a Scientific Theory. Most of its scientific detractors, which number nearly as many as practitioners, ARE Life Scientists.
The TToE has been around for 200+ years, has millions of practitioners and billions of data points. Its detractors, which represent not even 1/100 of 1 percent, are practitioners outside of the Life Sciences.
In fact, most of the the people who post on and about these threads could not define a Scientific Theory if their life depended on it.
AGW<>TToE, but I predicted this way upthread.
I took the "can only labor inside a materialistic world" to mean "science itself can only hope to be fruitful" {if and only if, in the logical syllogism, not the vernacular sense} the world is in fact materialistic".
This is not what you are saying, as far as I can see. Rather, you are saying, science is only equipped, prepared, capable of dealing with the material, all else, whether there is any such or not, is outside the purview of science.
In a certain fashion, I agree completely; in another, not at all. (What does one do when -- for the sake of argument, assuming there *is* a supernatural -- it interacts with the material world? It leads to paradoxes, or "unexplained phenomena", or gets hidden in the noise, as far as the science is able to ascertain.)
Pass, and all's well.
Most of these are going to be "counter-intuitive"; the Road Runner cartoons are based on counter-intuitive perversions of classical physics, but they still show imagination and "perspective" (thinking outside the box).
Cheers!
Swinging a dead cat above my head always seemed to help my experiments work.
“So are you willing to say you are still researching where God came from?”
I never said there was a God. The point is if there is a God, or if there was a big bang, seems both camps have to accept it on faith at this point that it (or He)came from somewhere. Neither one can prove the origin of their First Cause in which they believe.
Just wondering, what type of research does one do to find out the source of the big bang?
“God created the heavens and the earth and sent His son to die for us. The same is true for evolution. I don’t care if humans evolved over time or popped into being”
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
If we evolved and there was no literal Adam that brought sin and death into the world, why did Jesus need to die? A figurative Genesis undermines the very reason for the gospel.
BTW, I don’t think you have to believe Genesis is a true account to be saved.
yup...liberals project alot.
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.