Geocentrism and - Page 7

GSD_Admin,

I gave thumbs up ONLY because I can't prove God exists, I can ONLY suggest based on observational science seeing God's fingerprint of creation.

admin - perhaps another way to put your vague apprehension of my postion on the matter would be to say that I have more questions than answers, and do not hold my beliefs to be facts which can be proven. In both science and academia, you cannot expect to be taken seriously by making claims you cannot support. On more than one occasion have I stated here that I cannot prove what I believe to anyone, and am not in the business of convincing. We should continue learning and growing as both individuals and corporately. An open mind is a good friend, while hubris a mortal enemy in the matter.

I have an open mind and until the day someone can prove a God or higher power I will stick with the tidbits I have been shown in a near death situation. You can laugh and poke fun all you want and say I have no facts but I know what I know and until you or anyone can prove the existence of a God I will choose to not believe without stone cold facts. You don't have them all you have are words written in a book with a lot of people claiming it is coming well guess what people having been claiming it is coming for 100s of years now and I am still waiting.

Carlin wrote: Shtal still can't prove to VK that God exists,

Carlin, I wanted to make some brief points here without misinterpreting in the wrong way? The beginning of the universe seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural. I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There had to be some organizing principle my dear Carlin. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing. You see Carlin; in order to recognize an explanation is the best, you don’t have to have an explanation of the explanation; in order to recognize an explanation is the best - you don’t have to be able to explain the explanation. Carlin this is elementary point in the philosophy of science. Suppose astronauts were to find on the backside of the moon a pile of machinery their, it were NOT been left by American or Russian cosmonauts. What would be the best explanation for that machinery? Well clearly some sort of extraterrestrial intelligence that left the machinery their! And you don’t have to have explanation of who these extraterrestrial were or came from or how they got their or anything of that sort – on order to recognized the best explanation of this machinery is intelligent design. Dear Carlin, in order to recognize an explanation as the best – you don’t have to have explanation of the explanation. In fact Carlin when you think about it, requiring that - would immediately lead to infinite regress of the explanations, you would needed the explanation of the explanation but in order to recognize that as best, you would need an explanation of the explanation of explanation and then explanation of the explanation of the explanation of the explanation and so that nothing could ever be explained lol.

Carlin seems to understand the word 'Believe'. @ Beetree.

Coincidences either happen, or they don't  -  hardly a matter

for Travels to 'believe' or not 'believe' in, Bee.

If you are trying to get at whether posters believe  that coincidence

is NOT merely co-incidental, but the result of some kind of interference

or shaping, whether by god, karma or some other sort of 'fate', you are

still expecting atheists and agnostics to hold some conviction that

folk/fairy tales are true.  We may not feel the need to do that. 

Shtal, you're filling in gaps again, and that is your right. In truth however, we don't even know for certain (without a leap of faith) that the universe itself is not eternal. This article for instance, provides the basis for such a cosmic condition.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0610213

I don't like the word "supernatural". The implication is that God is doing or has done something which is not consistent with the order of the universe. Not that He couldn't or wouldn't theologically speaking, but I prefer to believe that what one would understand as "supernatural", is actually something consistent, but largely beyond observation, speaking to the vastness of that which we do not yet, and may never understand.

Carlin lol, well obviously if you were indeed NOT a theist and especially if you are a person who prefer the universe to be a godless sort universe, those of the sort of facts making feel little bit uncomfortable, there is no shortage of person is trying to derail argument from fine tuning as I meantion already, one popular way trying do that is to take the fine tuning data NOT so much to suggest there is a God who made this universe but perhaps our universe is one of millions of others, if you think about the multiverse, you can think there are millions and millions of universes out their, you might reason yourself that well at least one of them had to be turn out right and it so just happens to be ours, lucky for us Carlin lol. So multiple universe theory incidentally clearly see, some people do suggest that there our multiple universes, they have to be in order to get sort of probability backup. Well, spice to say there is really no independent conformation for multiple universes or of any universe rather than ours. The only reason for buying into multiple universe theory is to derail fine tuning argument. Some including the Philosopher Richard Swinburne said: “Multiple universe theory represents the height of irrationality” It is attempt to dodge rather elegant and simple theory named theism by inflating probabilistic resources well to the extent of postulating millions of university. When you start to increase your probabilistic resources like that just in order to avoid a pretty plausible elegant theory “It is refer to Inflationary fallacy” And the there is still some discussion going on expect to plausibility even multiple universes theory, probably number one objection to it is seem to be no independent evidence and no possibility of coming up with such independent evidence, hypothesis in the future.

And so my dear Carlin, as we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency – or, rather, agency – much be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted to the cosmos for our benefit? Which Bible suggests in Genesis 1:1.

Thank you for reading, Shtal.

 Hundmutter,

I see how you might take it, now.

I will let Travels explain her own reluctance. 

Carlin, I want to share with you what science teaches today about the universe…Let's see, if you learned secular science that all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, (very hot region) that may have been much smaller than a period on the page. All the matter in the universe, think about it Carlin? You couldn’t even squeeze Volkswagen into a dot smaller than a period on the page. It’s been estimated if you took a freight train that is a mile long, one mile long freight train and if you can compact into solid matter and then take that solid matter and remove all space between neutrons, protons and electrons, you see atoms is the mostly space and if you can really get solid matter, it estimated freight train a mile long fit in thimble, but it would weight as much as freight train, now of course that is physically impossible do such a thing but you can’t squeeze a Volkswagen into a dot smaller than pre-printed in the page. But here they are teaching the kids the whole entire universe, you realize how big entire earth is Carlin? And it is tiny compare to some other planets; you realize the sun and how many other stars there are? The last estimate by the Hubble telescope estimated 70 Sextillion stars, most of them is gigantic compare to our sun and they want me to believe all of this was in a dot smaller than a period in the page. Satan has to be laughing at these evolutionists for believing this stuff; can you think anything more absurd? Then it says in the text book? For some unknown reason this region exploded, this explosion is called the big bang. If you going to get that matter squeeze that tight in a first place that would take some kind energy that we can’t comprehend; okay, why would it explode? How long did it stay in squeeze position and why did it explode? And where did the energy come from to make this explosion? Where did the energy come from to get it together to begin with, I mean there are host of questions that can be asked about big bang. Like what exploded? Why did it explode? Where did it come from? Well, that is what the text book says, for some unknown reason it exploded.

And a text book says:

After many billions of years, all the matter and energy will once again be packed into a small area. This area may be no larger than the period at the end of this sentence. Then another big bang will occur. The formation of a universe will begin all over again. A universe that periodically expands and then contracts back on itself is called closed universe. In a closed universe, a big bang may occur once every 80 to 100 billion years.

Keep in mind; they cut down a tree to print that! That is absolutely so dumb to believe such a thing, it exploded and it is going to comeback someday and squeeze in and then explode again, comeback and explode again. Do they really, honestly believe that? I mean they can possibly believe such a thing? Oh well, I am done with this crap.