Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
I realize that you said "seperate" and that is why I said "outside". He is seperate only in that He is infinite,
I am "outside" my lunch, but that doesn't mean I am separate from it. The lunch is now part of me as the contents of my stomach. When you said "in" God, that's the situation you set up.
1. You haven't established that God is infinite. You have simply asserted it.
2. Being infinite but having the universe "in" God does not separate God from the universe. It simply means that God is very large in comparison to the universe, but you still have the universe as part of God.
And I am still wondering about the universe being "a part of God".
Right. If the universe is part of God, you have just reduced God to the role of a creature of the universe.
The perfect is supposed to be One in nature.
Where did this unsupported assertion come from?
My statement should have been- God is greater than what exists, so He is not what exists.
This doesn't help. As Jesus, God certainly is "what exists". Unless you are now trying to deny Jesus existence? But you have to in order for your assertion to work.
See how you end up destroying Christianity?
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
Now scientifically, mathmatically the chance that those 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations each fitting in its own niche with a predetermined zip code the odds of those could evolve in thier placement is [/size]1 chance in 10 to the exponent 4,478,296. [size=2]That number is beyond any comprehension. Anything said to be over 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power is said to be literall impossible. Even math professors universally say: we can calculate how big that number is but it is completely impossible to even imagine how big that number is. it is so large, thats 10 to that number. 1 chance in that number is so small it is beyond the potenital of happening naturally even if given an eternity of time.
Thats quite a post gnarly. You should try to narrow the scope a little to help people address individual points (although I do the same thing all the time with my lenghy dissertations).
The problem with the 'probability' argument is that it takes a present condition and works *backward* assuming a complete chain of events. Each event in the chain, when considered alone, is probable...and so the argument carries no weight. I posted this before, but let me make the point again. Lets say you have a lottery where the chance in winning is 1 in a billion. But a billion unique tickets are sold and each draw someone wins. Lets look at the list of winners:
draw 1: Jet Black
draw 2: lucaspa
draw 3: michali
draw 4: gnarly
draw 5: me
draw 6: david
Now the chances of these people winning in *this order* are less than 1 chance in 10 to the power of 50. According to your source, this means that this sequence of events is "literally impossible". Obviously, this is not the case. You can continue this for another 10,000,000 draws. And then someone looks at the list and says, the odds of these people winning in this order is zero...therefore it did not happen. Its a completely flawed argument. Does this make sense?
All creationist 'science' arguments have the same flaw: they don't bring any good science to the table. At most, they pose good questions...and at their worst, they are complete nonsense.
In order to displace evolution we need *better science*. No scientist should every insert God when the current science fails to adequately explain the phenomena.
As I have said before, evolution does *not* disprove or change the truth that the God of the Bible is real and created all things.
Sure it is. You have not demonstrated the necessity that the sytem you are looking for must be infinite. That is your premise, but you haven't established that premise. You have to go back and do that.
Again, no. The universe is expanding. Period. It is getting larger. It is not required to expand into anything. All that is required is that the universe get bigger. You are applying your limited viewpoint of a balloon expanding into the surrounding air. But the universe is not like that.
You must understand that I know it is not like that. But because it is increasing in value, it is increasing within the parameters of infinity. Which is something that I believe to be a system. Which I believe that system to be the "perfect".
Say what? You just attempted to redefine "omnipotent". But omnipotent is defined as the ability to do anything and everything. That is what "omni" means. Pi is not omnipotent because, although it is infinite it 1) doesn't explore every combination of numbers. After all, it does not explore the combination of 0.1666666 ... does it? It can't! Because that seqeunce also goes to infinity. 2) pi cannot make a hamburger, go for a walk, create a universe, etc. So pi is infiniite but not omnipotent.
Indivisible unit of what? That's the second time you have used multiple universes incorrectly. What exactly do you think is the theory of multiple universes? I can think of at least 3 different one.
I am sorry about the pi thing. Pi is a mathematical term, and cannot be applied to real life if there is an actuall indivisable unit of spacetime. Because infinity is so complex, some have theorized a "true Greek atom". Obviously, there must not be an infinite amount of space between my fingers, because they can make contact with eachother.
I gave several examples of entities that are NOT possible. You didn't address any one of them. Therefore you cannot simply assert a falsified claim as tho it is still true.
What examples? Do you mean the mathematics forcing existence? What do you mean? Anything you have said to not be true I have said you were mistaken.
Not to be mean, but have you read all of the previous posts? The root of 2 is infact perfectly infinite "in the small". But, in the real world, in order for the universe to not be infinite, there has to be indivisble units of spacetime.
Its just that your notion of perfect is a strange one, Michali. Root 2 is 'perfectly' infinite? Why isn't 5? It also has an infinite number of digits after the decimal place, they just all happen to be zero.
That's a classic tautology! It is meaningless. All cats are cats. Yes, but so what?
by my logic, God is potent enough to limit His own actions. He has "chosen" His will. He has "chosen" His nature. Because we also are beings, I can see that God has imprinted His image onto us.
The initial statement was that God had was limited to putting His characteristics on us. This doesn't help that. If God chooses to limit itself and its characteristics (then it could also limit its infinity and omnipotence, BTW) then that means a whole set of characteristics that God can eliminate from itself. However, what is to prevent God from putting some of those characteristics into humans? Say, gender? Which gender does God have?
In fact, God is not compelled to put any of its characteristics into us. So what if we are also beings? Bacteria are also beings. Did God imprint its image onto them? How do you "see" that this has happened? What's your extrabiblical evidence?
I am attempting to seperating myself from my beliefs at the moment, so therefore I am not staying within the confines of Christian theology.
Why not? Isn't Christian theology supposed to contain truths about God? Why are you junking all those truths?
And the wait? How about the fact that there wasn't a wait?
By your logic there has to have been a wait.
1. God is infinite in all dimensions.
2. Therefore, God has existed infinitely into the past.
3. Big Bang is only 13 billion years old.
4. God had to exist infinitely before the Big Bang.
5. Humans are God's companionship.
6. Therefore, since God existed infinitely before the Big Bang, then God had to wait.
Also, there was no time before the creation of the universe.
No time to us. But you are insisting that God is beyond the universe. That God is the system that contains the universe. Since the universe has time, that means that God has time long before the universe came into being.
Logical deductions from your assertions.
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
I am "outside" my lunch, but that doesn't mean I am separate from it. The lunch is now part of me as the contents of my stomach. When you said "in" God, that's the situation you set up.
1. You haven't established that God is infinite. You have simply asserted it.
2. Being infinite but having the universe "in" God does not separate God from the universe. It simply means that God is very large in comparison to the universe, but you still have the universe as part of God.
Right. If the universe is part of God, you have just reduced God to the role of a creature of the universe.
Like I said, the definitions don't seem to work for God to fill erything and yet be seperate from everything. So, He is both in it, and out of it. Though this does not make the veiw pantheistic. The universe is not God, but it is in God. And I am calling the infinite system "God". Do I need to establish that there is an infinity again with the expanding universe? How have I reduced God to something He has created by saying the system is a part of Him?
Where did this unsupported assertion come from?
That is actually from Xenophanes, but, if it incorrect, then it is incorrect.
This doesn't help. As Jesus, God certainly is "what exists". Unless you are now trying to deny Jesus existence? But you have to in order for your assertion to work.
See how you end up destroying Christianity?
I told you that I am seperating myself from Christianity at the moment. I believe that God did not stuff Himself into a human body. How could He be out keeping order through His creation-filling presence. He simply was present in Jesus' body as he is in all of ours. Which was a body He had complete control over.
You must understand that I know it is not like that. But because it is increasing in value, it is increasing within the parameters of infinity. Which is something that I believe to be a system. Which I believe that system to be the "perfect".
Well, we are making progress. You are at least thinking about what your premises are.
What you should have done is set up a system like this:
I am going to propose some ideas. I want to see if my ideas follow logically from the premises. The premises are:
1. Infinity is a system.
2. Infinity is perfect.
Now, we could then have evaluated your logic. But we would then have gone back and also challenged your premises. Logical conclusions are only as valid as the premises, and your premises are shaky, to say the least. I think they are unsupportable.
if there is an actuall indivisable unit of spacetime.
There is. It's called the Planck length and the Planck time. Anything below that becomes fuzzy and blurred adn indivisible.
I gave several examples of entities that are NOT possible. You didn't address any one of them. Therefore you cannot simply assert a falsified claim as tho it is still true.
What examples? Do you mean the mathematics forcing existence? What do you mean? Anything you have said to not be true I have said you were mistaken.
Your claim: in an infinite universe everthing is possible. Even if the universe were infinite, we would still never have:
1. A flat earth.
2. Getting more work out of a reversible system than was put in. Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
3. the aether.
4. Matter moving at speeds faster than the speed of light in vacuum.
None of these can exist.
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
Let me say that the view works well with Christianity by the names of God. Such as "I AM"- Being that He is the only true substance.
"Alpha and Omega"- The parameters of infinity which we will never reach. And which all exists in.
Well, we are making progress. You are at least thinking about what your premises are.
What you should have done is set up a system like this:
I am going to propose some ideas. I want to see if my ideas follow logically from the premises. The premises are:
1. Infinity is a system.
2. Infinity is perfect.
Now, we could then have evaluated your logic. But we would then have gone back and also challenged your premises. Logical conclusions are only as valid as the premises, and your premises are shaky, to say the least. I think they are unsupportable.
That would have been nice, but I began in the middle of a thread and in response to a post. But unsupportable? As with anything of infinite nature, we have to make proposals. Note- If you think I am saying "there must be" because I believe this to be hard fact, I do not. It was simply used in common speech to carry on the post.
Also, I am only shooting out the proposals. In which case, I know there are going to be problems. But that doesn't mean that the entire idea is trash.
There is. It's called the Planck length and the Planck time. Anything below that becomes fuzzy and blurred adn indivisible.
Your claim: in an infinite universe everthing is possible. Even if the universe were infinite, we would still never have:
1. A flat earth.
2. Getting more work out of a reversible system than was put in. Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
3. the aether.
4. Matter moving at speeds faster than the speed of light in vacuum.
None of these can exist.
No, if the universe were omnipotent and uncontrolled it would do everything. It is because of those laws that the infinity is perfect enough to limit its own actions. It has set up laws. The universe is not infinite, so it is not necessary to discuss it. But whatever is infinite limits itself, and has "will" in doing so.
This isn't a quote. Well yeah it is, I think you consider reading his books. Darwin in articles claimed to be insane. He would puke up on himself, the father of our modern concept of evolution is insane as he even said in his writings. I will end here: "It's pure determinism."
You have throw out all ideas of a god, therefore i will not debate such a biased closed hearted individual. Cast your biasedness away as once said by a scienctist athiest, Dr. Atkins. You cant explain orgins so what are we to discuss something that may have not occured?
Linear Mode
