Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote:please Audie, just answer these simple questions

Can I have a go? Audie and I have some very different views, but then again, much in common, I feel.

A) Do you believe the source of ALL previously non-existing / non-physical things was eternal?

What does this mean? Non-existing things don't need a source, surely? Are you asking if the source of all that does exist was eternal? If so, then I'd like to know what you mean by eternal. If eternal means stretching back forever in time, then I'd have to say I don't believe that, as I believe time was created at the big bang. If you mean that the source of all that exists (including time) must lie outside time, then I'd agree with that.

B) Do you believe that non-intelligent, non-living things can blindly/randomly/instantly assemble things in things of astonishing precision and design? (per Big Bang science assertions)

Well, yes, as it happens. The best I can come up with at present are Lichtenberg Figures. Beautiful. But what, exactly do you mean by living? Every third-grader knows what's alive - something respiring, reproducing, absorbing nutrients, excreting and growing. If it doesn't do that, it's not alive. Whatever is responsible for the universe, it certainly doesn't do any of that, does it? So what's your interpretation of the word 'alive'.

C) Do you believe that whatever source of the universe had the ability to make the non-physical become physical?

Yes, obviously.

If you believe any of the above, your beliefs are metaphysical, yet without some identified spiritual Source.

Really? Don't you believe all of the above? So is your belief "without some identified spiritual Source"?

D) If you don't believe any of the above, WHY not?

Well, I do, as I say, so presumably this question doesn't apply to me...

D) Hugh: If you don't believe any of the above, WHY not?

Well, I do, as I say, so presumably this question doesn't apply to me...

And so you'd be correct in that.

Audie - Theo? Point me to what you are referring to.

Philip wrote:Audie - Theo? Point me to what you are referring to.

After all the times that I have tried to bring you back on track regarding your response to my response to the post from Theo supporting the ark, I guess its been so long it is no longer to be perceived back thro' the gauzy mists of time.

Re: The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined
Postby Philip » Sat Nov 05, 2016 10:22 am

theophilus wrote:
If the flood wasn't worldwide Noah wouldn't have needed to build an ark. He could simply have moved away from the area that was to be flooded.

Audie: We could of course get into the assumptions ( vast leaps of baseless faith) required of
flood-believrrs, but such would be churlish.

Now, it is my contention that such scenario as you describe is 100% fantasy,with no demonstrable
basis other than belief in the originator's notion of personal infallibility when it
comes to bible readin'.

That's all pretty rich, Audie,

And then you proceed to slam at me with all sorts of concocted nonsense
for which you still take no responsibility, AND, note please, it is generally considered appropriate to respond to the topic, the ideas, not to make irrelevant and scurrilous remarks about the person who expresses the ideas.

You are a complete fail, in that dept. (that is a personal, but not irrrelevant remark, from me)

Now, can you finally respond to my post to "theo", or, do you in fact have nothing to say about it? If so, admit it. And ask yourself why you started all this in the first place if you have nothing to say.

Really, Audie - I thought you were going to point me to where you had answered my specific questions - so, where is that - I sincerely would like to see how and where you answered them.

Philip wrote:Really, Audie - I thought you were going to point me to where you had answered my specific questions - so, where is that - I sincerely would like to see how and where you answered them.

You think a lot of inappropriate thoughts about things that are not so.

The exchange here started with your response to what i said to theo.

I asked what you didnt agree with.

As you can find nothing that I actually said that you disagree with, but
choose instead to charge off down a different path, inventing things that you claim I think or believe, then savaging those, this is stupid, and I am done with it.

hughfarey wrote:

Philip wrote:please Audie, just answer these simple questions

Can I have a go? Audie and I have some very different views, but then again, much in common, I feel.

A) Do you believe the source of ALL previously non-existing / non-physical things was eternal?

What does this mean? Non-existing things don't need a source, surely? Are you asking if the source of all that does exist was eternal? If so, then I'd like to know what you mean by eternal. If eternal means stretching back forever in time, then I'd have to say I don't believe that, as I believe time was created at the big bang. If you mean that the source of all that exists (including time) must lie outside time, then I'd agree with that.

B) Do you believe that non-intelligent, non-living things can blindly/randomly/instantly assemble things in things of astonishing precision and design? (per Big Bang science assertions)

Well, yes, as it happens. The best I can come up with at present are Lichtenberg Figures. Beautiful. But what, exactly do you mean by living? Every third-grader knows what's alive - something respiring, reproducing, absorbing nutrients, excreting and growing. If it doesn't do that, it's not alive. Whatever is responsible for the universe, it certainly doesn't do any of that, does it? So what's your interpretation of the word 'alive'.

C) Do you believe that whatever source of the universe had the ability to make the non-physical become physical?

Yes, obviously.

If you believe any of the above, your beliefs are metaphysical, yet without some identified spiritual Source.

Really? Don't you believe all of the above? So is your belief "without some identified spiritual Source"?

D) If you don't believe any of the above, WHY not?

Well, I do, as I say, so presumably this question doesn't apply to me...

I will be impressed with Cosmo thereforegod some time after one of its
proponents can say for a fact that they know what time is, and can explain it.

Obviously, unless all this stuff had a beginning, there is no role for a god
of the sort imagined, or as Paul might put it, "understood" to be. So things like "eternal", "beginning" are indispensable, however ultimately meaningless they may actually be.

While they are at it, I'd like to know if math has a beginning or an end.

Ah, Materialism, the self-refuting "science", LOL !

Audie wrote:I will be impressed with Cosmo thereforegod some time after one of its
proponents can say for a fact that they know what time is, and can explain it.
Obviously, unless all this stuff had a beginning, there is no role for a god
of the sort imagined, or as Paul might put it, "understood" to be. So things like "eternal", "beginning" are indispensable, however ultimately meaningless they may actually be.
While they are at it, I'd like to know if math has a beginning or an end.

I'd like to reply to this, but for the life of me I can't make head or tail of it. You seem to be inquiring about the nature of time, and at the same time suggesting that either time, or material, or both, did not have a beginning. Is that the gist of it?

hughfarey wrote:

Audie wrote:I will be impressed with Cosmo thereforegod some time after one of its
proponents can say for a fact that they know what time is, and can explain it.
Obviously, unless all this stuff had a beginning, there is no role for a god
of the sort imagined, or as Paul might put it, "understood" to be. So things like "eternal", "beginning" are indispensable, however ultimately meaningless they may actually be.
While they are at it, I'd like to know if math has a beginning or an end.

I'd like to reply to this, but for the life of me I can't make head or tail of it. You seem to be inquiring about the nature of time, and at the same time suggesting that either time, or material, or both, did not have a beginning. Is that the gist of it?

The gist is that sans any real info about what time is, the cosmo argument is meaningless.

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:*my enduring fav. is that the extra water was wafted to Neptune, where it shines even unto this day as a warning beacon against incoming rogue angels.

actually scientists have just recently found all that water? like, a year ago? let me see if i can find it...ya, 2 years ago, i guess


https://duckduckgo.com/?q=science+disco ... 2__&ia=web

bbyrd009 wrote:

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:*my enduring fav. is that the extra water was wafted to Neptune, where it shines even unto this day as a warning beacon against incoming rogue angels.

actually scientists have just recently found all that water? like, a year ago? let me see if i can find it...ya, 2 years ago, i guess


https://duckduckgo.com/?q=science+disco ... 2__&ia=web

All the water from a mythical flood?

Audie wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:*my enduring fav. is that the extra water was wafted to Neptune, where it shines even unto this day as a warning beacon against incoming rogue angels.

actually scientists have just recently found all that water? like, a year ago? let me see if i can find it...ya, 2 years ago, i guess


https://duckduckgo.com/?q=science+disco ... 2__&ia=web

All the water from a mythical flood?

ha, good point; but i accept "the flood" as useful mythology, meant to convey a lesson across millenia, and not a "factual" thing. Surely developed from "localized" flooding.

bbyrd009 wrote:

Audie wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:*my enduring fav. is that the extra water was wafted to Neptune, where it shines even unto this day as a warning beacon against incoming rogue angels.

actually scientists have just recently found all that water? like, a year ago? let me see if i can find it...ya, 2 years ago, i guess


https://duckduckgo.com/?q=science+disco ... 2__&ia=web

All the water from a mythical flood?

ha, good point; but i accept "the flood" as useful mythology, meant to convey a lesson across millenia, and not a "factual" thing. Surely developed from "localized" flooding.

What lesson might that be?

If what you say is so, what is the takeaway lesson about the accuracy of bible accounts?

my enduring fav. is that the extra water was wafted to Neptune, where it shines even unto this day as a warning beacon against incoming rogue angels.

I did not write this - I think Audie did.