Dear Christians: why doesn't god DO something?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What created the designer? If you answer that he doesn't need to have been created, why cannot that same logic be applied to the universe itself?

[/ QUOTE ] When you apply laws of this world to things that exist outside of it you are likey to arrive at an unfounded conclusion. The question about the universe and the logic that applies to it has the "known" consequense that the universe doesn't appear to be static. I think this arguement goes to theists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't say I entirely understand what you are arguing here.

[/ QUOTE ]Our proximity to the universe gives us a perspective that we don't have the same advantage to measure god with. Our observations of the "known" universe point away from the universe being static. All the laws of the universe fall apart even the law that matter is never lost at the earliest time of the universe. The "cause and effect" effect happens only when there is a time deminsion. When we ask what created the designer, we assume that cause and effect applies outside of time. It may be possible to apply that logic to the universe, I just don't have the knowledge to do it at this time. It's not that theist do a better job of explianing the "creation" or whatever that turns out to be of the universe to God. It's just that God had the vantage point of being predefined as existing outside of the universe, it wasn't always so. There is some knowledge that needs to be gleemed if we wish to apply the always existing, or existing outside of time to the universe. Does that make sense, I'm just shooting from the hip.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What created the designer? If you answer that he doesn't need to have been created, why cannot that same logic be applied to the universe itself?

[/ QUOTE ] When you apply laws of this world to things that exist outside of it you are likey to arrive at an unfounded conclusion. The question about the universe and the logic that applies to it has the "known" consequense that the universe doesn't appear to be static. I think this arguement goes to theists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't say I entirely understand what you are arguing here.

[/ QUOTE ]Our proximity to the universe gives us a perspective that we don't have the same advantage to measure god with. Our observations of the "known" universe point away from the universe being static. All the laws of the universe fall apart even the law that matter is never lost at the earliest time of the universe. The "cause and effect" effect happens only when there is a time deminsion. When we ask what created the designer, we assume that cause and effect applies outside of time. It may be possible to apply that logic to the universe, I just don't have the knowledge to do it at this time. It's not that theist do a better job of explianing the "creation" or whatever that turns out to be of the universe to God. It's just that God had the vantage point of being predefined as existing outside of the universe, it wasn't always so. There is some knowledge that needs to be gleemed if we wish to apply the always existing, or existing outside of time to the universe. Does that make sense, I'm just shooting from the hip.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I agree with you. One could argue that indeed the laws we live by -- logic, physics, etc.-- do not apply to that which is outside the universe. I would go further and say we can't be sure that those laws even apply to the universe, but only our limited human understanding of it.

That being said, I don't think that the jump to believing in a creator or designer is warranted, especially one that requires worship or reverence. One could just as easily argue that the the apparent nothingness that came before the big bang is outside the laws in question. If that is the case, it is perfectly logical to argue that we sprung from that somehow, and that no divine architect is necessary.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that the jump to believing in a creator or designer is warranted, especially one that requires worship or reverence.

[/ QUOTE ] Right.

[ QUOTE ]
One could just as easily argue that the the apparent nothingness that came before the big bang is outside the laws in question.

[/ QUOTE ] One could easily argue a number of things that we just don't know about.

[ QUOTE ]
it is perfectly logical to argue that we sprung from that somehow, and that no divine architect is necessary.

[/ QUOTE ] Right, unnecessary sure, but non existant is a bit of a stretch only given what we know in this arguement.

The point is that we are making up stuff in both situations that we just don't know yet. I am waggering that we have the ability to know these things.

[Peter666]

Where was this taken from? Everybody who was there saw the miracle, not just some. Scoffers, atheists and masons were converted. People from 25 miles away who were not involved in the event saw it too.

It was not the effects of bright light, as can be see in the reports of the eyewitnesses. Of course people would not look into the sun for 10 Minutes if there was nothing there. C'mon, don't you know that if that occured there would be 70,000 blind people after the event? And remember, people were running in fear from this. I don't recall people staring into the sky or bright lights being scared to death. And as can be seen from the reports, the sun was acting in a way totally unnatural from the "rational explanation." your article trys to give.

And later, energy forced people to the ground. I don't know what kind, but that is what the eyewitnesses report.

And the photographers...do you know how big, heavy, awkward those cameras were, and how few would have been there in 1917? Naturally they would have been pointed to the seers and the crowds and could not be instantly adjusted. And if the photographers are experiencing the miracle, they could not take the photograph anyway.

And of course, we also have the prophecies of Fatima, which all came true: The time when WWI would end, that there would be a second and greater war, The rise of communism in Russia, the name of the next pope etc..

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that the jump to believing in a creator or designer is warranted, especially one that requires worship or reverence.

[/ QUOTE ] Right.

[ QUOTE ]
One could just as easily argue that the the apparent nothingness that came before the big bang is outside the laws in question.

[/ QUOTE ] One could easily argue a number of things that we just don't know about.

[ QUOTE ]
it is perfectly logical to argue that we sprung from that somehow, and that no divine architect is necessary.

[/ QUOTE ] Right, unnecessary sure, but non existant is a bit of a stretch only given what we know in this arguement.

The point is that we are making up stuff in both situations that we just don't know yet. I am waggering that we have the ability to know these things.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we basically are in agreement on this. I have no idea what came before the big bang, so to speak, but I know that there is no solid logical argument that leads to the conclusion that a divine creator is the answer.

My main main point in posting in this thread was to challenge NinjaMan's assertion that it was indeed logical to think that a divine creator birthed our universe. If you go back and read the post of his I was responding to, I think you will see I was simply posing a counter-point; I wasn't stating that I truly believe that we sprung from the nothingness before the bigbang. I was simply putting forth one of many alternative theories to his ID view.

[Zeno]

Here is some more fodder for you. Have a pleasant time making fun of them:

Secular Humanism

Philo

CISCOP

Flim Flam

Randi

Books to Read


Science


Joe Nickell

-Zeno

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
People who link to infidels.org should shampoo my crotch!

[/ QUOTE ]
Shave it.


[ QUOTE ]
Veteran hacks posing as scholars make for a grim consensus.

[/ QUOTE ] You callin' Bertrand Russell a "hack"?


[ QUOTE ]
Jesus, according to the Infidels, was merely an amateur [magician].

[/ QUOTE ]Well, according to me, Jesus was a strong close-up magician.

Still, you can only be as good as your audience! And let's face it, at the time, the place was full of naive and credulous idealists -- a soft room.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
It's just that God had the vantage point of being predefined as existing outside of the universe

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a nonsense statement. The word "exist" has no meaning outside the contexts of space and time.

Peter, you must stop discrediting all these sources without providing any sources of your own. As of now all I have to go on is your word. I know little about these events. Why don't you direct me toward some credible sources that agree with you?

[hmkpoker]

I'll have the lot of you know that I started this war after watching an episode of Penn & Teller: Bullsh!t...specifically the one on debunked miracles.

Yes kids, Penn & Teller are to blame.