the universe can be observed to be expanding.. an expanding universe must have had a beginning.
whatever begins to exist had a cause.
therefore the universe had a cause.
"Once you accept a cause beyond our space/time universe Occams razon doesn't apply. The simplest explanation is that space and time were manipulated as opposed to waiting around for 14 billion years." - Perry
Why doesn't Occams Razor apply? Manipulated by what though? If you assume a conscious body then you have not chosen the simplest explanation and have explained nothing yet again and have left yourself with even more to explain than you began with...
was just listening to a song that made me think of the jws so thought i'd say hi and see how everyone is.
i'm doing ok. kids are fine.
i'm good, making tons of friends, very successful in my career, bla bla bla.
This is my favourite song of the moment. Every time it is played on R2 there are always texts being read out about how they either hate it or love it. A true Marmite song!
in the first thread in this series we looked at how the same protein molecule can be assembled by many different sequences of amino acids.. we took the example of cytochrome c and saw that there are many times more possible sequences than atoms in the known universe.
however the sequences in humans and chimps are identical, and as we look at species less closely related to us by evolution the more differences we find.
this is very compelling evidence for common ancestry.. in this post we are going to look more closely at the dna code behind those amino acid sequences.. the "language" of dna is made up of just 4 "letters" - a,c,g and t.. sequences of letters are read off in groups of 3 called codons.. acggcctcgaatgccttc would be read as acg gcc tcg aat gcc ttc.
Okay is a human more closely related to a cat or a dog? - slimboyfat
Cats and dogs share a common ancestor from around 65 million years ago whereas the common ancestor that links us to them is much further back. Therefore they are equally related to us.
It is worth understanding that when our lines diverged there were no cats, dogs or humans. Our common ancestor looked nothing like a cat, dog or human. Similarly when the cat and dog ancestor diverged it was not yet a cat or dog as we would recognise such.
i just got back from the bookstore and i can't wait to sink into it based on all the reviews and press it has been getting.
it's called the big picture - on the origin of life, meaning, and the universe itself by sean carroll.. “weaving the threads of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, and philosophy into a seamless narrative tapestry, sean carroll enthralls us with what we’ve figured out in the universe and humbles us with what we don’t yet understand.
yet in the end, it’s the meaning of it all that feeds your soul of curiosity.” —neil degrasse tyson, host of cosmos: a spacetime odyssey*publishers weekly #1 most anticipated science book of spring 2016*"already internationally acclaimed for his elegant, lucid writing on the most challenging notions in modern physics, sean carroll is emerging as one of the greatest humanist thinkers of his generation as he brings his extraordinary intellect to bear not only on higgs bosons and extra dimensions but now also on our deepest personal questions.
the universe can be observed to be expanding.. an expanding universe must have had a beginning.
whatever begins to exist had a cause.
therefore the universe had a cause.
"So, if the mathematics (not to mention logic) shows our universe had a beginning, then someone or some thing, from the static state of timelessness had to have acted upon our space time universe in order for it to exist" - Perry
For sure, some THING must have caused our universe to begin if indeed it does have a beginning (The thing to consider with regards to any mathematical model is the Gigo effect) but it is not mathematical or logical to suggest a someONE. It is not logical because we have not observed a someone to cause a universe to burst into life and, more importantly, we know a someone can't do that...
Why is the non sequitur be so prevalent in religious people's thinking?
the universe can be observed to be expanding.. an expanding universe must have had a beginning.
whatever begins to exist had a cause.
therefore the universe had a cause.
Suggesting that something caused something to happen is one thing and based on observations that is a reasonably rational position to take on the face of it. However to then run with that and suggest that cause is then god or that the assumption of a cause is evidence for a god is illogical.
Why?
If you want to use logic to suggest that all events have a cause you must stick with using logic and not stop when you have used logic enough to give a baseline that you can then paste any old rubbish to. Therefore an extension of that logic of a first cause must continue on and on for ever. Thus it is logical to state that the first cause argument offers nothing in a way of an explanation insofar that we learn nothing by following that route of inquiry.
here's the response i get from a comment i made to an online article for billboard magazine, on prince's life as a jw:.
debra labelle c s5 hours ago"your a liar and hater of the true god jehovah.
i feel very sorry for you.".
I decided to have a pop but more out of boredom that any real inclination to get in to a discussion with either of those people.
various dutch (netherlands) media mentioned the anti-gay children movie on jw.org,.
and gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual organizations are shocked, and some gay people.
are reporting the movie to the local police.. the official spokesman of the dutch branch office in emmen declared that the movie is.
JW Children or children of JW's? The distinction between those 2 descriptions is why people are upset. Children need to be taught to think not told what to think, especially when those thoughts go beyond what society deems suitable.
Children are children and are not left/right/Christian/jew/muslim/whatever...
i am amazed at how people will go to extreme stretches of logic to explain or justify the supposed actions of their god (lower case g intentional, no upper case deserved).
i have seen people with wonderful bullshit detectors in normal life, throw all of that ability away in order to retain their hope of a creator who cares for them.
i am agnostic, certainly not atheistic, since i think atheism is not provable.
"i am agnostic, certainly not atheistic, since i think atheism is not provable" - xelder
Atheism is a position taken in relation to Theism in that it rejects the claims of Theism; therefore there is nothing that needs to be proven. The onus is on the positive claim, i.e. there is a god, to be proven truthful. It would be silly to expect someone to prove beyond all reasonable doubt each and every outlandish claim made, whether that be claims about a god or indeed anything else. The onus of evidence is always on the person making the positive claim. Yes, an "Atheist" may state there is no God but that, of course is a positive claim requiring some evidence.
A JW holds an Atheistic position in regards of the claims of all the other gods of this world. In fact it has been said that the only difference between a Christian and an Atheist is that the Atheist has gone just 1 god further...
250 million years ago a plume of molten basalt gushed up from the earth's core.
it erupted in an area now known as the siberian traps - back then it was part of the supercontinent pangaea.
a curtain of lava a mile high and hundreds of miles long lit up the sky.
Vidiot -
I'm not Cofty but as I am here...
http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArticle/refId-a0001655.html
