Message boards :
Politics :
What did God do before creation?
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19048 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
To the people I ignore...Just WAG is all that I seen from them. No real science that can be tested. GIGO. I understand the Garbage In, Gospel Out, but cannot understand the Wives and Girlfriends. Please explain. |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
Wild a$$ed Guess. |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24879 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
Wild a$$ed Guess. .....but without actual proof, isn't that what Intelligent Design is? |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19048 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
Wild a$$ed Guess. 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. |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 20265 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
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: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24879 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
From our little tete-a-tete a few months ago....I'd say around 45/48, still got a lot to learn....:) |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
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. |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24879 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
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: 2430 Credit: 926,046 RAC: 0 |
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. |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19048 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
We know by reason that God and natural law are real. 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 Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
We know by reason that God and natural law are real. 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 ... |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24879 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
More like TOGI. "Truth Out, Garbage In" |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30640 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
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. |
soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6497 Credit: 34,134,168 RAC: 0 |
|
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
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. |
dancer42 Send message Joined: 2 Jun 02 Posts: 455 Credit: 2,422,890 RAC: 1 |
What did God do before creation? ============================== He delivered unleavened bread with sauce. |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
Why hasn't man been able to create even a simple single celled form of life yet? Why do you believe man should have been able to create a single celled life form, given that the current best approximation suggests it took nature a few hundred million years, and man has been trying to reproduce the event for at most a couple of hundred years? I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
Why hasn't man been able to create even a simple single celled form of life yet? Who says you're aware now? "Go ask Alice" ... or Reginald Broccoli. |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.