| Subject: But do you quath? |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 02/27/04 3:21pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "A message brought to you by Wade." on 02/27/04 2:08pm
.
>
>I agree with Damoclese on this one. I think the past
>is finite and begins with the Big Bang. But from this
>I also infer the cosmological argument. Anything that
>begins to exist has a cause (ex nihilo nihil
>fit), since the universe began to exist, it was
>created by an extremely powerful (hey, creating the
>universe is a big job) outside agency that transcends
>time itself.
I don't think the universe is subject to ex nihilo nihil fit. What we think of as nothing the universe could very easily have come from, because "nothing" is actually stuff that is popping in and out of existence on an atomic level with an overall sum that cancels out (which is why we think it's nothing). All it would take is for one of these tiny particles to pop into existence just long enough to interact with another tiny particle, and you've got the makings of a universe.
.
>
>Really? I predict that time will still exist
>tomorrow. My prediction will come true (want to bet
>$50 on it?). If a prediction about time is logically
>impossible, it would seem you have a safe bet. But
>methinks you may be mistaken.
You can infer that time will exist tomorrow, and it probably is a safe bet. But you can't logically "prove" an inference. If you can, then a fellow by the name of Hume would be very interested in what you have to say, along with all of philosophy.
>
>
>Again, I agree with Damoclese. But again, it only
>seems to lend support to the theist. An extremely
>powerful outside agency that transcends time and space
>created the universe.
I agree. Random chance is an extremely powerful agency.
>>One can see pictures of cells and brains using
>>different methods. They could just extract a brain.
>>Got any pictures of God? Do you have some God
>>binoculars?
>
>Got any pictures of magnetic fields? Do you have some
>magnetic field binoculars? You cannot observe
>magnetic fields. You can observe their
>effects, but not the fields themselves. A
>similar thing could be said with various other
>postulated entities in science.
Which is why I originally included things that can be measured. Do you have a God measuring stick? (one can measure magnetic fields)
>
.
>
>But the question is, why this way?
Because if it weren't this way, the fundamental constituents would likely be different.
Which theory best
>explains the creation of the universe? The universe
>coming from nothing and just happens to have all the
>fine-tuned characteristics necessary for life,
I don't think the universe came out-of-the-box shrinked wrapped with the conditions necessary for life as we know it. The raw materials were there, which in my view are fully explainable by quantum fluctuation.
the
>consistent operation of sophisticated mathematical
>patterns etc.
Sophisticated patterns that we perceive that could have just as easily self-organized little by little.
Or is an extremely powerful intelligent
>creator that transcends time and space more
>reasonable?
Nah.
All the evidence considered, methinks
>it's the latter.
Methinks not.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 