well if any of u r familiar with the law of conservation and mass, then u know that it states that matter cannot be created from nothing, or completely destroyed. so evolutionists say this, then turn around and say the big bang created the universe as we know it. WTF!!?!?!?!the universe went from non existent to existent in a fraction of a nanosecond! and where did the bigbang come from? nothing? nope, because if the law of conservation and mass is true, then the bigbang isnt. simple...
There are three modes of existence: dependent entities, independent entities, and self-caused entities. Dependent entities, like us, require a creator - our parents. Independent entities require no creator. Their existence can be determined a priori. Self-caused entities are just logically incoherent. It's utter nonsense.
Since we can define both the universe and God in such a way so that they need no creator, this argument is getting us nowhere. God, by definition, needs no creator. The universe, because of our concept of time, also requires no explanation of the "before time." I suggest we move on to something more... interesting.
Okay then a question. If the universe can be described in a way that needs no creator, then what's the point of inserting one?
Well, we can describe the motion of the planets using a circular, rather than elliptical model. That doesn't mean we should, though. I am so committed to God's nonexistence that if He were to come down right now and say hi to me, I would just check myself into a mental hospital. That being said, there are some very strong teleological arguments for God's existence. Are they deductively true? Of course not. But they're awfully convincing.
Another question, if your god was real then he whould be omnimorphic. If we were created in the immage of a bieng who could be any immage then how does that make since?
That being said, there are some very strong teleological arguments for God's existence. Are they deductively true? Of course not. But they're awfully convincing.
Can't say I have ever heard any strong arguments. Unless your speaking from an emotional level.
If 2 asteroids ever hit each other, and then caused a bunch of planets in a solarsystem, with only one containing life.. I would love to see it happen. Gotta say i kinda find that a bitt more impossible than god creating us. Or maybe it was a great big speghetti monster.
If 2 asteroids ever hit each other, and then caused a bunch of planets in a solarsystem, with only one containing life.. I would love to see it happen. Gotta say i kinda find that a bitt more impossible than god creating us. Or maybe it was a great big speghetti monster.
Extreamly random thing, were did you get the asteroid theory from?
If 2 asteroids ever hit each other, and then caused a bunch of planets in a solarsystem, with only one containing life.. I would love to see it happen. Gotta say i kinda find that a bitt more impossible than god creating us. Or maybe it was a great big speghetti monster.
In the overly simplified laymen version. It's interstellar dust like what is found making up nebulas. Due to exceeding gravitational forces, the dust begins to condense. This can be triggered by things like a nearby supernova or black hole. As it collapses more and more it begins to heat up and eventually causes a fusion reaction thus a star is born.
This new star has it's own gravitation force pulling in and condensing the remaining dust. Over time the dust that wasn't pulled in because it condensed so much that it was just to big for the gravitational force of the star to effect it in that way, begin to form a stable orbit around the star. It forms this orbit because it now has it's own gravitational force pulling back. It's like a cosmic tug of war. Thus we now have planets around the star.
If one of those planets is sitting in the right distance from the star so that liquid water can exist then it has the potential for life to form. Also based on our observation of extremophiles we think life could exist in areas even outside these ideal conditions.
Can't say I have ever heard any strong arguments. Unless your speaking from an emotional level.
Well, unfortunately I'm not a philosopher of religion, and I wouldn't do any justice in trying to recreate these arguments. And I really don't feel like tracking down the papers right now. I think Cover has some nice arguments... I don't know many philosophers in this field. I do remember coming across some fairly plausible teleological arguments, though, in my one philosophy of religion class :P They certainly didn't convince me, but then again I don't think anything would.
If 2 asteroids ever hit each other, and then caused a bunch of planets in a solarsystem, with only one containing life.. I would love to see it happen. Gotta say i kinda find that a bitt more impossible than god creating us. Or maybe it was a great big speghetti monster.
Ingrediants:
God
What do we know about God? We know that if he exists, it's in a form quite unclear to us. We don't know what his plans are or in what aspects of life he does get involved in. Because every time someone sins, it is that person's fault (and Satan), which God is credited with anything good that happens. So yes, if God exists, then we don't even know HOW he interacts with the world or how much.
Basically, we know nothing about God. I'm not sayign that God doesn't exist, but at least we have an idea of how matter reacts with temperature and other different variables.
So please, do us a favor and never ever say that God is more believable than an explosion of matter, because we all know deep down that isn't true. At least have the courage to say "I believe God created that matter, which exploded." Don't every say that a scientific theory is less believable than God, because if you believe in God, you should believe that he works THROUGH science. When a baby is conceived, it would be more wise to explain that God created a soul for that child. For anything that is conceived.
So my point is, don't say one idea is more redicilous than the other, especailly when you're saying the scientific theory is the more rediculous of the two.
