In the Begining

[Jet Black]

mike flynn~

*i havent figured out how to do the 'quote...originally posted by:...' thing.

the quote button is in the bottom right of the message you are reading, just over there ------------>

 

[Nathan David]

No matter who or what sits at the top of your "family tree" Adam and Eve,Atom &Amoeba, or Crash and Bang- Someone started it all.

Someone? Or Something? Why do you assume it was a thinking, conscious entity?

 

[Mike Flynn]

Someone? Or Something? Why do you assume it was a thinking, conscious entity?

This ones pretty obvious Nathan. Its called 'faith'.

 

[lucaspa]

all i was saying was that to know God's character or to claim certain science theories as 'Truth' is assuming we know the very mind of God.

It's only assuming that God really did create. God had to have left evidence of how He created in His Creation. That's all science is: study of God's Creation to figure out how it works. The people who started modern science were Christians. 4 out of the first 7 members of the Royal Society were ministers, after all. They figured that minds made in the image of God could understand God's creation.

I notice that creationists don't object to all scientific theories. You don't. Only "certain" theories. How do you decide which theories you don't want to accept?

 

[lucaspa]

This ones pretty obvious Nathan. Its called 'faith'.

But the poster wasn't using faith to decide. He was using logic. The problem is that the logic doesn't tell you that First Cause has to be a someone. First Cause could logically be a something.

 

[Michali]

But the poster wasn't using faith to decide. He was using logic. The problem is that the logic doesn't tell you that First Cause has to be a someone. First Cause could logically be a something.

Judging on the product (that being humanity), I would say it is someone. Thereby endowing purpose to our existence.

Also, when you get into the "perfect" proposal, the infinite almost has to be a being. If you are interested in it, read the posts starting from the bottom of page nine in the "Chance and Evolution" thread.

 

[lucaspa]

Judging on the product (that being humanity), I would say it is someone. Thereby endowing purpose to our existence.

That does not follow. Our existence can be due to a something just as well as a someone. And one can get purpose to existence other than thru a deity. For instance, the "purpose" of every biological organism can be viewed as having offspring to pass its genes to. Not a very noble purpose, perhaps, but a purpose nonetheless.

Also, when you get into the "perfect" proposal, the infinite almost has to be a being. If you are interested in it, read the posts starting from the bottom of page nine in the "Chance and Evolution" thread.

Been there. I 've already noted my problems with your arguments there.

 

[Michali]

That does not follow. Our existence can be due to a something just as well as a someone. And one can get purpose to existence other than thru a deity. For instance, the "purpose" of every biological organism can be viewed as having offspring to pass its genes to. Not a very noble purpose, perhaps, but a purpose nonetheless.



Been there. I 've already noted my problems with your arguments there.

Purpose implies that we are being used by something. But if that something has no goal, then there is no purpose. Not to mention that we may continue reproducing, but all our offspring will eventually die. One day, life will be unable to suceed at this purpose. It renders it meaningless.

And I have since wrote much more after your post on the "perfect". I believe you have only read the title, and you asked me to clarify.