What did God do before creation?


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : What did God do before creation?

Previous · 1 . . . 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · Next
Author Message
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 21
United States
Message 1296464 - Posted: 18 Oct 2012, 5:44:09 UTC - in response to Message 1296237.

To the people I ignore...Just WAG is all that I seen from them. No real science that can be tested. GIGO.

Unless you have answers to all the questions asked of you before your vacation you shouldn't be posting. Unless, of course, you have something scientifically provable to add to the discussion.


Unless you have real answers, no WAG, GIGO shouldn't be taught in school



In that case, neither should Intelligent Design (No pun intended).


Intelligent Design is full of reason. WAG and GIGO is not.

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13542
Credit: 29,402,043
RAC: 15,902
United States
Message 1296500 - Posted: 18 Oct 2012, 11:43:40 UTC - in response to Message 1296464.

To the people I ignore...Just WAG is all that I seen from them. No real science that can be tested. GIGO.

Unless you have answers to all the questions asked of you before your vacation you shouldn't be posting. Unless, of course, you have something scientifically provable to add to the discussion.


Unless you have real answers, no WAG, GIGO shouldn't be taught in school



In that case, neither should Intelligent Design (No pun intended).


Intelligent Design is full of reason. WAG and GIGO is not.


...and you have yet to provide proof for why you believe it to have reason.

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8518
Credit: 23,124,563
RAC: 15,805
United Kingdom
Message 1296511 - Posted: 18 Oct 2012, 13:11:24 UTC - in response to Message 1296464.

To the people I ignore...Just WAG is all that I seen from them. No real science that can be tested. GIGO.

Unless you have answers to all the questions asked of you before your vacation you shouldn't be posting. Unless, of course, you have something scientifically provable to add to the discussion.


Unless you have real answers, no WAG, GIGO shouldn't be taught in school



In that case, neither should Intelligent Design (No pun intended).


Intelligent Design is full of reason. WAG and GIGO is not.

I understand the Garbage In, Gospel Out, but cannot understand the Wives and Girlfriends.

Please explain.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 21
United States
Message 1296542 - Posted: 18 Oct 2012, 15:14:21 UTC - in response to Message 1296511.

Wild a$$ed Guess.

Profile Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 10257
Credit: 1,530,132
RAC: 264
United Kingdom
Message 1296547 - Posted: 18 Oct 2012, 15:19:29 UTC - in response to Message 1296542.

Wild a$$ed Guess.


.....but without actual proof, isn't that what Intelligent Design is?
____________

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8518
Credit: 23,124,563
RAC: 15,805
United Kingdom
Message 1296553 - Posted: 18 Oct 2012, 15:38:08 UTC - in response to Message 1296547.

Wild a$$ed Guess.


.....but without actual proof, isn't that what Intelligent Design is?

So I.D. is using two acronyms to describe the same thing. Very strange but not totally unpredictable.

Make a wild a****d guess then feed the garbage in and out comes a gospel according to I.D.

Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31146
Credit: 11,330,256
RAC: 20,578
United Kingdom
Message 1296559 - Posted: 18 Oct 2012, 15:44:41 UTC

Anyone got an idea of the age of ID? (And I don't mean Stone Age) Just curious ...


Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8270
Credit: 4,071,698
RAC: 307
United Kingdom
Message 1296580 - Posted: 18 Oct 2012, 16:11:17 UTC - in response to Message 1296559.
Last modified: 18 Oct 2012, 16:13:45 UTC

Anyone got an idea of the age of ID? (And I don't mean Stone Age) Just curious ...

I'll put an unsubstantiated WAG of Belief of teen-age.


[Edit]
Oooops! He's at college but likely not as a student!

OK then, somewhat mid-half-century from his claims... ;-)
[/edit]

Keep searchin',
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 10257
Credit: 1,530,132
RAC: 264
United Kingdom
Message 1296618 - Posted: 18 Oct 2012, 17:32:18 UTC - in response to Message 1296580.

From our little tete-a-tete a few months ago....I'd say around 45/48, still got a lot to learn....:)
____________

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 21
United States
Message 1296632 - Posted: 18 Oct 2012, 17:51:58 UTC
Last modified: 18 Oct 2012, 17:53:13 UTC

We know by reason that God and natural law are real.

I am 48, clearly I have stated that. Nor are your personal attacks acceptable, they are out of line. Disrespectful.

Reason is not a WAG, nor is it GIGO.

"Catholic theologian St. Thomas Aquinas addressed this question way back in the 13th century. In the pondering of the concept of causality, the man noted that everything which happens in the natural universe has a cause. He also noted that there had to be an initial cause of the first things. He defined God as the initial causer of all things. God is "the uncaused cause," according to St. Thomas Aquinas. Although this is a very abstract definition and proof of God, it remains valid today."

I will agree that people who agree with WAG and what comes after GIGO have the right to believe that but I will not agree that it is reason.

Profile Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 10257
Credit: 1,530,132
RAC: 264
United Kingdom
Message 1296637 - Posted: 18 Oct 2012, 18:11:30 UTC

See this is what bugs me.....

why does the "religious & scientists" keep giving the impression that we are the centre of the universe?

We are born, live & then die. So why can't the same be said for the universe? Why can't the death of a system give rise to the birth of another?

We are told that the universe is continuously expanding & during that expansion some solar systems die with others born.

Why couldn't it just be a case of birth & death? Why does a "god" have to be brought into it?

As for personal attacks, I'd suggest that to avoid misunderstandings you change your user name from that of a theory.
____________

musicplayer
Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1431
Credit: 687,186
RAC: 42
Message 1296650 - Posted: 18 Oct 2012, 19:03:02 UTC
Last modified: 18 Oct 2012, 19:28:32 UTC

Hi Sirius B.

We bring up in our discussion or are utilizing the subject fields of mathematics and physics in order to try to explain certain things which are related to space (really the cosmos or universe).

With that in mind, we are typically having the assumption that one way of approach regarding a specific subject is different / better than another way of approach to the same subject, meaning that things possibly could be explained in several different ways.

One or more ways at looking at such specific things within the field of science are the atheistic/agnostic/believer vs. non-believer or even the debunker way of wieving such things within the subject of science. We are trying to explain certain things as they appear to us in a "deterministic" way. Proof is needed in order to verify specific and certain things.

My best guess or assumption is that personal "belief" (possibly meaning or implying religious "belief") does not get home with everyone here.

Why is it so that everything can be explained by means of mathematics? Surely I got someone with me here when it comes to that 1/3 problem a little earlier (one piece of cake for three persons - who gets "the rest" of the cake?).

Same goes with pi (or 3.1415926). It is a number which apparently ever ends.

Perhaps I am believing in a God myself. Still we do have such problems (as well as others) to deal with which apparently does not have any solution to offer.

If I may, I was able to recollect a little earlier some ideas I had about something (a subject or study field) which might resemble the descriptions or postulations in John's Revelation.

Not exactly the same thing, but something different.

We bring up or are utilizing the subject fields of mathematics and physics in order to try to explain things that are related to space (really the cosmos or universe).

With that in mind, we are of the assumption that one way of approach regarding a specific subject is different / better than another way of approach.

One way of looking at such things are atheists/agnostic/believer- or non-believer or even debunker way.

My best guess is that personal "belief" (possibly meaning or implying religious "belief" does not get home with everyone.

Why is it so that everything can be explained by means of mathematics. Surely I got someone with me here when it comes to that 1/3 problem a little earlier (one piece of cake for three persons - who gets "the rest" of the cake?)

Same goes with pi (or 3.1415926). It is a number which ever ends.

Perhaps I am believing in a God. Still we do have such problems to deal with which apparently does not have a solution.

Not exactly the same thing, but apparently something different perhaps, but if I may, a little earlier I was able to recollect some ideas of importance that I had about something (a subject or study field) which might resemble John's Revelation.

Unfortunately this idea which came to me fell out of my head again, but not the same as yesterdays short posting, by the way.

Likewise if we are looking at science again, the same goes for our position in space. We are living in a galaxy in a universe which is assumed to have been created by something or someone (or has everything in existence been created by pure chance, luck, chaos or randomness?).

Randomness and chance are subject fields within mathematics. There may be some reason to believe that randomness and chaos ends up in total symmetry, but that such symmetry is never meant to be lasting for long.

The same goes for the computation of numbers (Seti@home / PrimeGrid). In many cases many numbers (or factors) are needed in order to be able to obtain one specific or particular end result which is desired.

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8518
Credit: 23,124,563
RAC: 15,805
United Kingdom
Message 1296663 - Posted: 18 Oct 2012, 19:32:23 UTC - in response to Message 1296632.

We know by reason that God and natural law are real.

I am 48, clearly I have stated that. Nor are your personal attacks acceptable, they are out of line. Disrespectful.

Reason is not a WAG, nor is it GIGO.

"Catholic theologian St. Thomas Aquinas addressed this question way back in the 13th century. In the pondering of the concept of causality, the man noted that everything which happens in the natural universe has a cause. He also noted that there had to be an initial cause of the first things. He defined God as the initial causer of all things. God is "the uncaused cause," according to St. Thomas Aquinas. Although this is a very abstract definition and proof of God, it remains valid today."

I will agree that people who agree with WAG and what comes after GIGO have the right to believe that but I will not agree that it is reason.

Will you stop repeating yourself.
Of course Thomas Aquinus was a greater thinker. BUT that was 800 years ago.

If he was alive today, with today's knowledge his starting place would be a lot different and it is not unreasonable to think he might have different conclusions. He might even be a scientist rather than a theologian.

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,650,581
RAC: 2,970
United States
Message 1296688 - Posted: 18 Oct 2012, 20:48:57 UTC - in response to Message 1296632.

We know by reason that God and natural law are real.

I am 48, clearly I have stated that. Nor are your personal attacks acceptable, they are out of line. Disrespectful.

Reason is not a WAG, nor is it GIGO.

"Catholic theologian St. Thomas Aquinas addressed this question way back in the 13th century. In the pondering of the concept of causality, the man noted that everything which happens in the natural universe has a cause. He also noted that there had to be an initial cause of the first things. He defined God as the initial causer of all things. God is "the uncaused cause," according to St. Thomas Aquinas. Although this is a very abstract definition and proof of God, it remains valid today."

I will agree that people who agree with WAG and what comes after GIGO have the right to believe that but I will not agree that it is reason.


Well that's good enough for me then. A simple, elegant proof that by defining something as so, without respect for evidence, the eventual answer is whatever you want it to be.

The current, best approximation suggests that Aquinas was likely wrong on the concept of causality, though I.D rejects that (again without respect for the evidence).

I.D. claims for himself, or for Aquinas, knowledge that is either not available, or not true, that there are no things, other than God, for which a cause is not required. Why only God should be given this special power, neither Aquinas nor I.D. can say.

GIGO indeed.
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 10257
Credit: 1,530,132
RAC: 264
United Kingdom
Message 1296705 - Posted: 18 Oct 2012, 21:30:23 UTC - in response to Message 1296688.

More like TOGI.

"Truth Out, Garbage In"
____________

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12144
Credit: 6,426,040
RAC: 8,230
United States
Message 1319683 - Posted: 24 Dec 2012, 18:56:31 UTC

This should drive a few mad here ... there is no universe at all ...
http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847

Observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid are explored. The simulation scenario is first motivated by extrapolating current trends in computational resource requirements for lattice QCD into the future. Using the historical development of lattice gauge theory technology as a guide, we assume that our universe is an early numerical simulation with unimproved Wilson fermion discretization and investigate potentially-observable consequences. Among the observables that are considered are the muon g-2 and the current differences between determinations of alpha, but the most stringent bound on the inverse lattice spacing of the universe, b^(-1) >~ 10^(11) GeV, is derived from the high-energy cut off of the cosmic ray spectrum. The numerical simulation scenario could reveal itself in the distributions of the highest energy cosmic rays exhibiting a degree of rotational symmetry breaking that reflects the structure of the underlying lattice.

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/429561/the-measurement-that-would-reveal-the-universe-as-a-computer-simulation/
So an interesting pursuit is to simulate quantum chromodynamics on a computer to see what kind of complexity arises. The promise is that simulating physics on such a fundamental level is more or less equivalent to simulating the universe itself.

There are one or two challenges of course. The physics is mind-bogglingly complex and operates on a vanishingly small scale. So even using the world’s most powerful supercomputers, physicists have only managed to simulate tiny corners of the cosmos just a few femtometers across. (A femtometer is 10^-15 metres.)

That may not sound like much but the significant point is that the simulation is essentially indistinguishable from the real thing (at least as far as we understand it).

It’s not hard to imagine that Moore’s Law-type progress will allow physicists to simulate significantly larger regions of space. A region just a few micrometres across could encapsulate the entire workings of a human cell.


____________

Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,628,617
RAC: 649
United States
Message 1319988 - Posted: 25 Dec 2012, 23:26:20 UTC

Too many people have lied
____________

Janice

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 21
United States
Message 1320005 - Posted: 26 Dec 2012, 0:44:11 UTC

God made Angels and our souls before Creation.

In the Christian world... it is believed that angels were created at the beginning, and that heaven was formed of them; and that the Devil or Satan was an angel of light, who, becoming rebellions, was cast down with his crew, and that this was the origin of hell.
~Emanuel Swedenborg


I'm Catholic and don't believe in EVERY last little bit of this but I do think it is a good read for you.

I will say that none of you really attempted to answer the question. The question was asked with the conclusion already in mind.

Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,079,620
RAC: 10
United States
Message 1320097 - Posted: 26 Dec 2012, 10:19:24 UTC

What did God do before creation?

==============================
He delivered unleavened bread with sauce.
____________


Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2082
Credit: 37,768,675
RAC: 15,742
Message 1320115 - Posted: 26 Dec 2012, 13:15:50 UTC
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 18:49:05 UTC

--

Previous · 1 . . . 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · Next

Message boards : Politics : What did God do before creation?

Copyright © 2014 University of California