Zealot

Uniformitarianism is an assumption and it works well in geology because the Earth is a small system living in 1 tiny part of the universe. Making an assumption in physics does not make it a law. However in classical physics we use symmetry to simplify things to describe what is law. Just because it works here doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean it works everywhere. If I asked you what you would weigh on a planet in the Andromeda galaxy you would use w = mg but if I were to say prove it you would cite examples within our galaxy. In order to truly prove it you would have to go to the planet in question and weigh yourself. We have not seen energy move from low values to high values is because we are living in a time when the universe is expanding. In a closed Universe eventually the universe will collapse on itself bringing energy to a higher value which is in conflict with the second law of thermodynamics. Like you said when we observe is dominant and I agree however just because it is dominant doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean we can rule it out. Why does the outside of the universe matter? Well it matters because it harbours our universe. Just like our universe harbours matter; if our universe does not exist then neither do our planets and if this place outside of our universe doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exist then neither does our universe. Current thinking has it that the reason why gravity is so weak is because of the number of dimension our universe contains (10/11) and the fact that gravitons may be able to escape our universe altogether. If you want to treat this as meta-physics then you should treat the big bang as Meta physics (but you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t because it has a beginning as shown by red shifting stars) because you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t test the beginning.This is why I call string theory meta-physical and consider the Big Bang to be actual science: The Big Bang has after effects (like the red-shifting that you mentioned, or the cosmic microwave background radiation.) that can be scientifically examined and point to it... String theory is quite interesting, but as of this moment, there is no evidence that I'm aware of to support it. Yes you are right energy can not be created or destroyed at any time however if you create +ve energy and also create an equal amount of -ve energy, it cancels leaving no energy. I don't think that you understood what I was driving at... Everything that we see has a beginning (the big bang) and hencefar cosmologists have not confirmed that the sum of all the energy and negative energy in the universe is zero. (In fact it really doesn't look that way at all, observationally speaking) so either energy can in fact be created (because the big bang is the litteral beginning of everything, so before it that energy didn't exist) or else we're missing a very large puzzle piece. It is shown that particles come to and from existence through quantum fluctuations (a particle and an anti particle pair form and then quickly cancel each other out and disappear). It could be extrapolated that the stuff outside of the universe would create a universe and an anti-universe (but due to the size the universe and anti-universe pair exists for a lot longer then atom pairs would) which would collide and disappear, cancelling each other out. The problem with this extrapolation is it must assume that there are physical dimensions outside the universe... (which from my understanding of just the big bang, not anything that is still totally theoretical, doesn't make sence) Not only that, but it seems to me that if you are envoking this as an excuse for a steady-state multiverse (because it's clear that the universe isn't steady state) your logic is flawed... You see, logically, if the multiverse is infinite, and a universe has a chance of forming in any given point in it, then over the infinite past, the entire multiverse should be infinitely full of universes, one (or more) for every point in that multiverse. So basically, what you are saying is that because the laws of physics aren't necessarily universal, there's no point in studying them, because tomorrow, they may be totally different? If it's possible that tomorrow water will flow up hill, then what sence is there in saying that water always flows down hill? If we understand our current physics we can take advantage of them and make things easier for ourselves. Our laws of Physics did not always exist; just like the same reason water doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exists when its over 100 degree's c; our universe didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have things such as matter, Electricity, magnetism, and the weak force (If you go far back enough all forces act as 1) due to the fact is was too hot. If our universe is STILL cooling then it could be possible one day it gets cool enough so that the universe changes form again. I think that you're missing what I had intended to drive at... Yes, as you extrapolate back, or forward in time, the universe will act differently... But it will still be using the same rules; it's the universe itself, not the laws that govern it, that is dynamic. If in fact the laws that govern the universe are dynamic, then there is no sence in studying them because for one thing, we can never know for certian that they are true. What's the point of trying to understand a law that may not be true tomorrow? But there is very good reason to understand the law, if you know that it will be true tomorrow, even if it's effect on the universe may be somewhat different (because if the law is true, then you will be able to prepare for how it effects things in a different situation) The laws of physics can create itself is the total energy created = 0. This is done by +ve and -ve particle pairs, which can be extrapolated to the universe itself or if the universe is Closed the universe naturally cycles between being really big and being really small (much like a pumping heart).My understanding is that even using this model, the universe is having "bigger" large phaises between implosions... In fact, if I remember correctly, if you extrapolate back about 100 cycles, it's large and small periods are identical... Please correct me if I'm wrong The reason why things such like pi is always 3.142.... is because of geometry of the universe. If you draw a triangle on a piece of paper it's angles will add up to 180degree's but if drawn on a balloon it will add up to over 180degrees and drawn on a saddle shape will be less then 180 degree's. But that doesn't change the fact that there is an inherent value that is pi in the universe. Where does that meaning come from? What do you call a miracle and what do you call good luck (or chance). I like to say that luck is an unbeliever's excuse for God's goodness :wink: but seriously, I would consider things like deathbed healings (I've seen two, and am currently praying for a third... God will provide in His time) to be true miracles. Somebody doesn't just go from having stage four lukimia to being completely healthy litterally within minutes, but I've seen it. Nor does it make sence to chalk it up to "luck." The same is true of a man suffering a massive heart attack suddenly being completely fine, before my eyes. I don't have that power, neither does modern medicine... And quite frankly, neither does random chance. Less spectacular, but still convincing displays that I've had the honour of witnessing include broken bones being healed instantly, insanity being completely cured, and even such mundane things as a deer walking right up to a friend (who had been hunting all day, without even seeing one, and was exhausted) ten meters from his Jeep. Yes, you could chalk some of it up to luck... and yes, given long enough it's bound to happen. But quite frankly, I find it much easier to believe that there is a God who is personal and heavily involved in His creation, then I find it to believe that by random chance, when those who believe in God pray, their prayers are answered by random chance. HE simply makes sence of the situation. If you give the universe long enough anything can happen. The time it would take for you to "magically" appear on say Mars would take longer then the entire span of the universe to happen (it could happen but the probability that all your particles would appear on Mars would be extremely tiny) but like anything it can happen at anytime. Much like the half life of an unstable atom, we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know when it will become stable (and emit radiation) however we know the time when it half of the atoms will become stable. Evolution stuff (I'm not a biologist so I canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t really talk too much about it on biology aspects but I can talk about the physical aspects such as probability): Amino Acids like everything else in the universe, if given enough time the acids will appear in the right order to support reproduction (however the majority of orders that you can put amino acids in will result in nothing, there are orders that will result in something). Atheists are just as blind as theists. Again with the time argument about 100million years of evolution; it may take a while to get going but once it does it improves rapidly (like our technology for a modern day example). Then why are we not observing evolution around us? God knows that we've thrown the ecology far enough out of order that there should be some major adaptation going on... but there are no examples of new genetic information being added to a species that isn't unicellular... There are examples of a formerly dominant trait becoming recessive, but this really isn't evolution, in an honest sence of the word. As I think I said, I believe that it is possible that God used a process simmilar to what we identify as evolution to create biodiversity, but in and of itself, evolution doesn't offer satisfactory explanation. A possible reason why we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see much evolution is because evolution on a large scale has basically levelled out and there is little use for any more evolution (one day computers will be as fast as possible because they reach the theoretical limits of optics and size). Evolution is supposed to happen whenever a species is moved from its ideal environment (whether that be because there's a new pest that can get past its defences or whatever) We've messed with the world enough that we should be seeing some pretty significant results... but as I said earlier, there is almost none. And finally Gravity DOES bring order out of chaos and because you seem to be rather stubborn about this point I will include Scanned Images of a part of a science book that describes this process. Disclaimer: The following scans are legal under Australian Copyright laws (which the reproduction has taken place). They are reproduced under the "fair use" laws which allow 10% or 1 chapter to be reproduced without authorisation for Non-commercial, educational purposes ONLY. Part Taken from Brian Greene's book, The Fabric of the Cosmos All rights reserved; Published by Penguin Group. (If mods want further information about this please PM me) Please click the thumbnails for full size, quality reduced images. Edit: Missed a page.You're assuming that gravity can accomplish that from a state of utter chaos... I simply can not buy that. All gravity does is draw particles together, there is no reason in and of itself that gravity should cause these effects... But even assuming that gravity can bring a little order out of chaos, it really isn't enough to envoke it to explain why it is that a flagellum made of sixty-some-odd complex protine chains should be so much more efficient then the most advanced internal combustion engines in the world... yet the removal of even one protine would render it totally useless. It isn't a gradual increase in usefullness (nor are any cellular structures) it's all or nothing. One thing that I would like to point out here is this: I have a totally different starting point from you. I see the universe through the basic lense of, "God made it." You see the universe through the lense of, "It's always been here, is self existant, and is controlled ultimately by random chance." So of course we're going to come to different conclusions. I'm not trying to say that your lense is totally invalid; were I to say that, I would be the biggest fool of all, because I once looked through that lense. I stopped because things started not making sence to me. For example, why is it that our tree of life is more of a lawn? (All maner of different types of creatures within 10ma of the cambrian explosion, far lower biodiversity today) Other things that didn't make sence, how is it that I could not find even one piece of truely valid evidence to dissprove even one of the claims of this man, Jesus, who claimed to be God's Son? (and equal to the Father) How can He be the Son of a God that doesn't exist? Yet if I was truely honest, approaching the issue from a truely undecided position, there was nothing to discredit Him. My house of cards came tumbling down... In fact, I've had to shove my foot so far up my mouth at times that it's rather hard to breathe. :wink: I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right, and you're wrong (well, maybe just a little :oops: ) all I ask is that before you conclude that I'm just some nutcase, take an honest look at all the evidence you can find, both for and against the existance of God. I have a lot more respect for somebody who's willing to set aside their presuppositions and honestly examine the raw data... Though I must confess that it grows harder and harder with each passing day for me to do that... my explanation: as HE reveals to me more of HIS glory, it eclipses everything else more and more. Oh well, regardless of whether you believe in Him or not, may God bless all who happen to read this posting. :)

What is the cause of Gods exsistance? What caused God? The 2nd law of thermodynamics proves that God couldnt have always exsisted, so if he exsists he needs a creator and his creator needs a creator ad infinitum. If you put the entire universe on a 24 hour time frame, the exsistance of humans makes up the last two seconds of that 24 hour time frame. Evolution is pretty slow. No, I"m sorry, but it says everything that has a beginning has a cause for its existence. God's current definition leaves him at beginningless. And Chambochae, you didn't really offer any proof for your reasoning that physics doesn't apply to the universe... says who? The Queen of England? P.S read my posts all of you; you just ignore them like the plague (because they have some meaning). No... actually, that would be Jesus who said that, "Before Abraham was, I AM." :wink: Which is a claim to be unaffected by time if you really think about it. That which is unaffected by time, can not have temporal qualitiess such as a beginning. So if Jesus is indeed God, then it makes perfect sence to say that God has no beginning.

I AGREE. anyway isn't purpose what drives us all mad? isn't it what hope is used to combat? Isn't it why we live every day, to find one? I'd argue that seeking after false purposes is the problem... Once you know what it is that you were created to do, and are doing it, it's good to be alive... Regardless of what exactly that purpose is :)

I've seen you get this wrong so many times now. The laws of physics, including the laws of thermodynamics, only apply to things inside our universe, not NECESSARILY the universe itself. In order to prove your reasoning, you would have to prove the laws of physics apply to the universe as a unit, in other words you would have to prove that the laws of thermodynamics apply outside this universe, and for all you know the concept might not even make sense. In the same way that for all we know pi could be a number other than 3.14... , or that 'numbers' have no recognisable definition, or that the concept of 'definition' doesn't make any sense at all! You are reasoning with things that you just don't know hold any relevance whatsoever to the situation. I'm a bit confused, because it seems to me that the law of thermodinamics applies to the total amount of useable energy in the universe, and states that as time progresses, this number drops... Eg. at the big bang, there was so much available energy in so small a space that it was impossible for even hydrogen atoms to exist... but as time progressed, and the universe inflated, the overall level of useable energy dropped, leading to the first atoms being born... As time progressed, more and more energy became unavailable, allowing stars and heavier elements to form. Eventually, we come to the universe in the condition that it is in now... but as time progresses, the amount of useable energy continues to decrease (radioactive decay, and solar fusion being two examples) Please correct me where I'm wrong, but it really seems to me that because the law of thermodynamics applies to all things in the universe, it just makes sence that it is applying to the entire universe (because, after all, the universe is the sum of its components...) Also, I would argue that numers have an inherent value appart from humans assigning it to them: eg, before pi was known, the circumfrence of a circle was equal to its diameter times pi... that was something that humans simply found out, not something we invented. Pi can not be any number other then what it is, because by deffinition, pi is the number you get when you divide a circle's circumferance by its diameter... which happens to be approximately 3.14... and would be regardless of what it was called, or what circle you use to determine it. In the same way, two is exactly this many periods ".." it isn't this many, "..." or this many, "." because two is the convention that we use for this many periods ".." (and every other concievable object in that quantity) the meaning behind the word was there long before the word was coined, and the meaning will remain long after the word "two" ceaces to be used. So where does this meaning come from? Where, other then intelligence, has meaning ever come from? What rock assigns meaning to the term, "limestone?" What star defined "white dwarf?" What atom created the meaning of "iron?" In truth, it is humans who gave meaning to these terms, before meaning was assigned, the term "white dwarf" could have refered anything, or nothing at all. Intelligence is the only force that has been observed to give things meaning. And I would argue is the only force capable of doing so... so the fact that there are things that have meaning apart from human deffinition (abstract concepts like numbers being counted among these "things" but in fact, everything has an inherent meaning if you really think about it; limestone was what it is before it was assigned that name [humans gave the name, not the object, meaning] and will continue to be what it is even if it ever ceaces to be called limestone) points to some sort of overmind that created and gave meaning to them... and to a Christian, that is part of who God is... He's much more then that, though. In fact, no matter what box, I try to put God in, He just won't fit. To attempt to define Him is to do Him a great injustice. Good points Jonnysmum, especially about Jesus being a horrible failure as far as con artists are concerned :wink: Funny, isn't it, that throughout the Bible, prophets (people who speak on God's behalf) have backed up their words from Him with clear evidences (miracles) Show me a miracle, and I'll believe you... until then, I'll happily go on being stupid in your eyes, (as I suspect will most Christians :wink: ) because we're interested in doing what makes Daddy happy, even if that doesn't neccicarily lead to the good will of our fellow man :wink: His idea of what the primordial atmosphere would have looked like was later proven to be skewed. If in fact a proper mix was used, I will grant that "organic" molecules would have formed, but nothing that is at all useful for creating life. He would have come up with embalming fluid... (which for those of you who don't know, is toxic to absolutely all forms of life, because of damage that it reeks on the cellular level) :roll: Though interesting historically, Miller's experiment proved nothing... To be honest, I wish that people would stop pretending that it "proves" evolution... Even my Historical Geology teacher from two years ago agreed with me on this point. I would also point out that life is more then simply ameno acids... They have to combine in a precise order to create a protine that is capable of self replication. The only force that has ever been observed to create order out of chaos is intelligence. Because of the complexity of the ordering neccicary, and the fact that most cellular systems can not be simplified without losing functionality entirely, it really does not make sence to say that life originated from any force other then intelligence.

Onto the next one... "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning....The word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." John 1:1,14 The word spoken of by John is Jesus of Nazareth. note the phraise, "and the Word was God," if you believe the Bible, then Jesus and the Father, and the Spirit are all the same. If not, then what basis do you have for your claims? Don't assume that you know more about any philosophy/religion then one who holds to it; it makes you look rather foolish.

If its impossible how did satan achieve it? or If satan never experienced gods grace and love, is that to say he never lived in heaven or was never created perfect in the beginning? Being created perfect does not guarantee that one will understand. In his free will, satan chose pride. He thought that he was better then God, that for some reason, he desirved his worship more then his Creator. Satan missed the point. Though he was created perfect, he refused to truely experience God's love. I believe its you missing the point. These people believed they "felt god", but new information lead them to believe otherwise. So its true saying they never experienced gods grace, it didn't exist to begin with. I'll still mantain that they never knew Him, or they wouldn't have left Him. What I'm talking about goes beyond emotion, and beyond intellect. It goes far beyond anything that can be explained. Emotion and intellect are both involved, but they play minor roles. God's grace is a dynamic force that leads to a transformation. I, quite litterally, am not the same person that I was five years ago, before He called me. Since you did not know me then, and know me only by what I write now, you can not truely comprehend the change that has happened. I am, in many ways, proof that a murderer can be redeemed, that a thief can have hope. I am living proof that no matter what muck you wade through, once you allow Him too, Christ can make you clean. I'm not proud of what I was, what I had allowed myself to become. Nor could I have changed on my own. God knows I tried. All the glory for this incredible change goes to HIM. And it excites me to know that He's only beginning :D

VERY good point youve hit on their, but i have one question to ask you How was God created? A very good question... After all, how can it be that something that exists independant of time, can be created? How can that which is non-temporal have a temporal property such as a beginning? It simply isn't possible for the God of the Bible (who exists apart from time) to posess the quality of being created. Psycho hit on a very significant point though. The complexity and precision of the coding of DNA for example, is far greater then any language that has ever been spoken by a human being; The human brain is capable of trillions and trillions of times more calculations per second then the most advanced super-computers in the world; flagellum are capable of spinning hundreds of times faster then the most advanced internal combustion engines in existance-- but are also capable of reversing instantly... yet there is no way that they can be simplified and still funcion at all. This universe, which is supposed to be moving toward a state of chaos, is full of these instances of ordering far beyond what humanity is capable of. But how is that possible? The only force that I'm aware of that has been observed to be capable of bringing order out of chaos is intelligence. So based on that fact alone, it is reasonable, observing the many cases of complex ordering in the universe, (which is supposed to be moving toward total dissorder) to conclude that it came from intelligence. Then there's this incredibley fascinating twist called the "Big Bang Theory" Which says that space and time had a beginning in the distant past. What caused it? Everything that has a beginning has to have a cause, so what is the universes cause? Why is it here??? Theories abound, but evidence is strangely lacking from all of them. (which is why the majority of physicists are called theoretical physicists now... for the past thirty years or so, their theories have outstripped actual research) In fact, many scientific theories never will be able to be empirically examined... They simply deal with realms that are either too small to detect, or simply not available for examination in the three spatial dimensions we occupy.

So I can murder you and your family, and I'll gain salvation as long as I believe that Jesus died for my sins? Do you think God really wants that? Now I can finally start living a mafia-drugsmuggler life in a huge mansion ordering poorer people that work for me to kill others without having to worry about the christians telling me I'm bad. I'll just tell them I believe Jesus died for my sins, buying hookers, selling illegal drugs for hundreds of millions, killing people that are after me, laundering money, etc, right? I suppose it would be more fun than the ordinary american life of working for a few thousand bucks a month. Why bother when I can get tens of millions a month, and blame it all on Jesus. The one thing that you miss is that Jesus said, "If you love me you will do as I command." A murderer can be redeemed, as can an adulterer, lier, thief, or any of the rest of us wretches... There is no such thing as a sin that God is unwilling to forgive, save one... Refusing to allow Christ to change your life is, in God's eyes, unforgivable. It's called blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. No, you can not continue with your old ways (or as you imply be even worse :shock: ) and be forgiven. It simply isn't possible, once you've experienced God's overwhelming grace and love, to ever turn back. I'll conceed that there are people who claim to have experienced God's grace, but there's no new fruit there (Points to sig) but I would argue, from personal experience, that these people have missed the point entirely.

Jesus didn't make sins, Society defines them. If you are refering to the 10 commandments, that wasn't Jesus that was the God that led the Jews out of Egypt. No brainwashing neccesary, God gives people free choice. Jesus just gives people facts and allows people to make up their own mind. All religeons have their "savior" be it Moses, Jesus, or Budda No, I'm not trying to convince you to have a religeon, I respect you for you. I am not Christian nor am I Athiest. I am neither an Optimist nor am I a Pessimist, I am a Realist. If society defines sin, then why is it that you and I both look back at the holocaust in disguist? (I assume, of course that you aren't among the minority who are hard core anti-semitists, and either applauds or denies the holocaust...) I would imagine though that the vast majority here would say that the mass-murder of people based on race is not "right." However, if it is simply society that defines sin, then we have no right to say that the holocaust was wrong, because the society that preformed it thought they were "right." So we are left with a predicament: either the holocaust wasn't bad, or there has to be some ultimate good that is more important than society. If there is a good that superceeds society, then where did it come from? The simplest answer is that if it can be established that there is a higher morality then simply the good of society, there has to have been a creator for this morality. (after all, it takes intelligence to define right or wrong) The only being who could have the right to define right and wrong for a human being would be the One who made that human... ie. God. I'm not going to go into proving that there is a higher morality at the moment; sufficing to say that if you believe that the holocaust was wrong, you already accept the belief that there is some ultimate code of ethics that the morality of the NAZI party was farther from then the moral code you abide by (or believe in, if you don't do such a good job of abiding by it :wink: ) Also, Colsmith, is it God's fault that you choose to defy Him? If there truely is free will, then it isn't anybodies' but your own fault... If on the other hand, we're a bunch of glorified puppets, then it would be impossible to truely blaim God, because casting blame would require a concious choice (ie. free will) :wink: On the other hand, why would God create people who would defy Him? Why would the all-knowing CREATOR AND SUSTAINOR of everything choose to create me even though He knew that I would, in my natural state, choose to murder Him, rather then love Him? Interestingly enough, the Apostle Paul dealt with this issue almost 2,000 years ago... What he said in a nut-shell is that God uses our fallen state to emphasise His Holyness... (it's in the book of Romans, but I don't remember the exact verses if I have time, I'll post it tomorrow) Simmilarly, a candle is much more appriciated in a dark room then outside at noon.