|
Post by johnsapphire on Oct 14, 2006 15:59:06 GMT -5
No, not Verdi the opera composer, Verdi the shoemaker from western Turkmenistan's small county that translates roughly as "Grapeland".
YES, VERDI THE OPERA COMPOSER.
|
|
|
Post by The Observer on Oct 14, 2006 16:04:05 GMT -5
This is my absolute favorite of all debates. I could write for a very long time on this, and I am sooo sorry that I have to rush off now. I will come back later tonight. Really, I will. And I will share my thohgts and opinions, as well as scientific fact and argument that realtes to the discussion. Science is not nearly so at odds with religion as many people would have you believe. I promise I will elaborate soon, but I really have to rush off. I'm already late....Bye!
|
|
|
Post by johnsapphire on Oct 14, 2006 16:08:39 GMT -5
Good luck in...whatever you are doing!
|
|
|
Post by The Observer on Oct 14, 2006 19:40:43 GMT -5
Thank you, and here are a few of my thouhgts:
I am a Christian, and I have a personal relationshop with God. No, it's not always the best, but I do have one. Now, as to can the Christian God be debated or "proven" I'm not sure. But I do know this: if you look only at facts and rational argument, without bias, then you will come to the conclusion that there is a divine being. From there, the validity of the Bible can be debated, but first the exsistance of the divine must be argued.
Let's begin by looking at the universe with as little bias as possible. This is where John argument immidatly begins to fall apart. He said that because he "cannot look at the universe without making reference to a divine force" he has come to the conlcusion that there is no beginnng. That is biased. He begins with the presuppostion that there is no God, and then builds his theories around that. That is very unscientific, to begin with assumptions. If the universe it looked at with a more rational eye, we see the Big Bang. yes, I am an ardent supporter of the Big Bang. All of the most reliable and accepted theories support it. Einstien did, and so do the world's most prominent astronimical minds as well as physcisits. The expansion of the Universe "red shift" etc. all point to a single moment of singularity from which all the universe, and time itself, sprung. Hmmm...a single moment in which all of everything came spontaneuosly. Sound familiar? Genesis supports this exactly. For a long time Christians fouhgt with science because scientists said the universe had always exsited. Now, science has changed, and religion is proven right all along.
As to the "Blue Shift" and the idea of a repeating universe. There is little evidence to support this. The universe is actaully accelerating as it expands, not slowing down. Stephen Hawkins tried to make the equations for a repeating universe work, but he couldn't (something to do with turning time into a mathmatical dimension, all he could do was change the shape of the singularity, he couldn't get it to repeat). There is far more evidence for the universe coming out of nothing then for it always exsiting. Besdies, the Universe could not have always exsited for a simple reason. Time. Time, by definition, had to start from a certain point. If time was infinite, then in order to get to the present one would have to pass through an infinite past, which would be impossible (sorry, I know that's a little deep, I'll get back to simpler stuff in a minute)
It seems scientifically sound that the universe came out of nothingness. That before it there was void, a voide so absolute there was not even vacuum, not even time. Then something caused all of the univerese to come into being. THis cause would have to exsist outside time and space, and have power over them. Hmmm...sound possible familiar? Perhaps not the Christian God yet, but a divine power is being strongly suggested.
Now, about people believing differnt things. I'm going to upset all of the relativists here, but it has to be said. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE UNIVERESE WHAT YOU BELIEVE. Sorry, but it's true. Truth exsists, always has, always will, outside of human opinion. THe world is round: it remains round no matter how many people believe otherwise. Light travels at a given speed, gravits exsits, draining blood out of a human body will eventually kill it. NO matter what people believe, these things remain true. WHAT YOU BELIEVE DOES NOT CHANGE WHAT IS TRUE. This applies to everything, from the sun rising in the morning, to what happens after it sets on you last day alive. The exsistance or non-exsistance of God is a fact. God either does or does not exsist. God is either as real (or realer) than gravity, or as false as any other lie. And out opinions about the matter make no difference. Except one, they make a differecny to us. Not just personally, not just "whatever makes you feel good", but "whatever is best for you". If God does not exsist, then it is a waste to live a life of piety or goodness, it would be better to enjoy life. However, if God does exsist, it is best that we know and act accordingly. If we exsist after this life, then it is not only important, but VITAL that we discover how and why. Our lives are so short, just an grain of sand on the beaches of eternity. If what we do in this tiny grain-of-sand moment determines how we spend the rest of eternity, then it is very important that we discover what it is that we should do.
There is much more. We could discuss evolution, the exsistance of the human soul, origins of life, how morals are determined, the differnce between the physical and spiritual (or lack thereof), all sorts of things. But this is a pretty good into. Sorry it was so long, hope you got through it, as you can see I spend most of my free time researching these sorts of things. If you have more to discuss, or would like more detail on something I mentioned. Just ask, otherwise, the floor is open.
|
|
|
Post by johnsapphire on Oct 14, 2006 20:01:11 GMT -5
You misquoted me once and made several statements which I disagree with. if you look only at facts and rational argument, without bias, then you will come to the conclusion that there is a divine being. From there, the validity of the Bible can be debated, but first the exsistance of the divine must be argued. You tell me if I look at facts and rational arguement I will conclude there is a divine being. Then you tell me it must be argued. Dislexia? He [John] said that because he "cannot look at the universe without making reference to a divine force" he has come to the conlcusion that there is no beginnng. Hardly. I said that one cannot look at the BEGINNING of the universe without making reference to a divine force. If there was, in fact, nothing at one point, then something other than the universe must have created that. You tell me that something is an omniscient, omnipotent God. I say, "Wait. Before we start assuming the existance of an all-powerful creator, let us assume a method of the universe's workings without making reference to a supernatural being that transcends time and space. If there was no creation from nothing, there need be no creator." This theory has been accepted as fact by various astrophysicists around the globe. That is biased. He begins with the presuppostion that there is no God, and then builds his theories around that. That is very unscientific, to begin with assumptions. Sorry, but it is quite scientific indeed. Well, more mathamatical than anything, but you get my point. If you accept an assumption to be true, you are doing nothing more than creating a discharged hypothesis. And as for being scientific, is it more rational to assume there is an enormous, undefined power that you cannot see, identify, test, or examine, or to try to come up with a theory explaning the beginning (or lack thereof) based on what you can see, test, examine, and identify, regardless of what a book written over a thousand years ago with no knowledge of science or medicine said?
|
|
|
Post by The Observer on Oct 14, 2006 20:13:14 GMT -5
I'm not referring to an omniscient God. I'm simply arguing that the universe clearly had a beginning. Because it had a beginning there must have been a cause. This cause must have exsisted outside the universe and had power over it (enought power to cause the universe to come into form). I never said what this casue looks like. I simply stated that so far, it begins to resemble God. If you have a hypothesis or theory for another cause of the universe, I would love to hear it. But from what I see, the most logical conclusion is that the univserse was caused by something that exsisted outside of itself and that that something had the power to create it. That's a far cry from God, but it also does not discount the possibility.
Oh, I'm sorry about that first quote, the "You" I was referring to was the reader, not you specifically. It was unclear, my bad.
Yes, assumptions can be taken as true to modify a hypothesis, but they must be proven true first. In seeking unbiased truth, there is no reason to assume God does not exsist, or that God does exsist. The assumption should not be made until there is proof or at least strong evidence to support it. And to assume that God does not exsist partially because the universe was not created by Him, while using the assumption that He does not exsist to show that the universe was not created, is circular reasoning and not at all scientific.
|
|
|
Post by johnsapphire on Oct 14, 2006 20:45:39 GMT -5
"I'm simply arguing that the universe clearly had a beginning."
Argue. Now. And cite all references.
I won't post again on this thread until there have been at least three reviews of my poem "the wist".
|
|
|
Post by eakyra on Oct 14, 2006 21:49:51 GMT -5
Picky Picky Picky.
|
|