by Delta20 234 Replies latest watchtower bible
Sure Golf,
I was speaking only for myself. I already knew the Christian/JW view so studying science was a look at things from another perspective for me. I am not claiming to present both sides in my post since anyone I wish to convince already knows the Christian viewpoint. Maybe I misunderstood your point. The fact that an invisible, silent, and inactive(in modern times) God can't be studied by science was learned by studying science.
Liberty II,
Hello and welcome to the board! You sound like a cool critical thinker. I liked your summation of the point I was trying to make:
Obviously Creationist/Intellegent Design proponents are not true believers that everything must have an intellegent creator since they are willing to accept that God did not.
Looking forward to seeing you around!
SNG
D Dog,
My point is that you seem to want to put words in the mouths of creationists.
If I wanted to put words in their mouths, I'd make them say something more like, "Hi! I'm Cathy Creationist, and I just have to say, evolution is waaaaaaay cool! Gooooooooooo science! Yeah!" Then she would do a couple backflips and spell out "deoxyribonucleic acid" with her arms, YMCA-style.
SNG
Hey SNG! Hope you are doing well!
Have you seen this?
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_life_050216.html
Sure hope it proves to be true! Wonder what the fundies and intelligent designers will say if it is?
All best,
Mak
DDog,
Sorry I'm a bit late in the discussion:
Are we talking about the relational theory or the absolute theory?"outside space" is an oxymoron just like "before time".Can we say "before space" or "outside of time"?
Language belongs to the relative, and the word "absolute" only marks the cognitive limit of the relative. "Beyond" (another spatial metaphor) there are no valid words, just silence.
We can say anything, that's the miracle of language: "before space" or "outside of time," or "the earth is blue like an orange". But if we don't get that's poetry and nothing else, this just shows our inclination to fool ourselves with words extracted from their natural area of validity.
:"the earth is blue like an orange"
Finally someone who agrees with me!
Six: that's from Paul Eluard,
http://www.auvergne.iufm.fr/EPE/TIC/plc2_2001/sites_eval/site_%20lettres/costerg_allary/nadja.htm
SNG:..... Saying that God exists outside the time and space of his creation does not free him from the logical requirment of the premise that complex things require a creator. Unless you qualify that as, "Complex things that exist within our universe require a creator." But that sounds less like a solid logical premise and more like a statement intentionally crafted to support belief in a creator, so I don't think it is as compelling
Your putting God in a box that God has created. To do this you must have some logical proof that enables you to make this assessement.
Makenna,
Hello! Yes, I'm fine, thanks! How are you? That was a really interesting article. What will the fundies say, indeed. It will be especially interesting if the life is not based on RNA/DNA replication, since that would indicate strongly that life arose multiple times in the universe, independantly, which would have major implications about what we should expect as to live throughout the universe. Exciting times, these!
elderwho,
Your putting God in a box that God has created.
Sigh. No, I'm not. I'm saying that ID uses a premise that has certain implications. If I base my argument on a premise such as "All cats are orange," then the implication is that I should not be able to find a cat this is not orange. ID proposes a premise. I'm simply noting that the premise is clearly not universally true.
You can make statements all day long about God being out of the bounds of space-time or whatever, but you haven't addressed the fact that the premise is not internally consistent with the thing it's supposed to support. That's all. It has nothing to do with God.
I never said God doesn't exist, either. He can exist if he wants to, but it doesn't mean the ID premise is correct, and it doesn't mean creationism is correct. I'm merely showing that the ID premise has logical inconsistencies.
SNG
Deputy Dog:
Does time even exist without space? Newton says yes.
100 years ago Newton's opinion on the subject would have carried some weight.
