Posts by Chap

24

Prove It!

by Chap in

as far as i know, most people believe there was nothing, then it happened, then there was something, which still exists today.

is what most people believe possible?

is the truth able to be determined logically?

Chap

SYN:

What I attempted to say was that the universe was created by God along with humanity. God always exists so in him contains all physical laws.

172

well i know i may be opening a can of worms here.... but after what we were taught in the wts about creation...and now that you may know more about evolution... which do you think you'd choose to believe more??.

myself...i am leaning towards evolution...but then i read things that make me think otherwise.

so i do find it confusing sometimes .

Chap

Rem:

Supposing there is not an always existing agent in which contains all physical laws. One day something appears from nothing. How did physical laws come into being?

24

Prove It!

by Chap in

as far as i know, most people believe there was nothing, then it happened, then there was something, which still exists today.

is what most people believe possible?

is the truth able to be determined logically?

Chap

Abaddon said:

First off you haven't even defined 'nothing'.

Ok, I'll define nothing for those who couldn't gather what I meant by what I wrote.Webster's New World Compact School and Office Dictionary

Nothing: 1. no thing; not anything

When one pours a beer into a glass, he is not putting beer into nothing, he is displacing the air in the glass with beer. Does this make sense, Outlaw?

Define place

Place: 9. a particular spot, part, position etc.

If I occupy a particular spot, someone or something else cannot occupy that same spot without first moving me from the said spot.

Even if we tighten the definition, or actually give definitions to the terms you are using, such as 'two solid objects comprised of matter cannot occupy identical Euclidian time-space co-ordinates at the same time', it doesn't allow you to make the second part (in red) of that statement with any assurance, as you've not proven it.

First of all, I have never seen nothing. But I'll watch my nightstand and let you know if anything appears on it that no one has put there. (Don't hold your breath)

No, I haven't proven the existence of God. All I did was to state what the God "I am" in the Bible is. God proves himself by what he created. However, it takes more faith to believe that we came from nothing because that violates scientific laws.

172

Evolution or Creation??

by dottie in

well i know i may be opening a can of worms here.... but after what we were taught in the wts about creation...and now that you may know more about evolution... which do you think you'd choose to believe more??.

myself...i am leaning towards evolution...but then i read things that make me think otherwise.

so i do find it confusing sometimes .

Chap

rem said:

Here are some things that would be impossible with your interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics:
Drawing a straight line
Weather
Reproduction
Life
Building a house
Discussing this on the Internet

I will use the cause and effect argument as regards to life. Since non life cannot cause life because life is greater than non life, life must have always existed. I started a new topic because I think my discussion of God in this manner is off topic.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/48940/1.ashx

24

Prove It!

by Chap in

as far as i know, most people believe there was nothing, then it happened, then there was something, which still exists today.

is what most people believe possible?

is the truth able to be determined logically?

Chap

The last post I made is what I believe. I do not believe I am contradicting the Bible. Maybe there are Bible students that will say that I am wrong. These beliefs in my last post also explain why I do not believe in evolution.

24

Prove It!

by Chap in

as far as i know, most people believe there was nothing, then it happened, then there was something, which still exists today.

is what most people believe possible?

is the truth able to be determined logically?

Chap

As far as I know, most people believe there was nothing, then it happened, then there was something, which still exists today. Is what most people believe possible? Is the truth able to be determined logically?

Let us first examine nothing. If there is nothing, it must exist forever because a boundary would be something other than nothing. If two things cannot exist at the same time in the same place, than nothing cannot exist with or create something. If an affect cannot be greater than its cause, than nothing cannot cause something. Nothing an infinite amount of times is still nothing.

Now let us examine something. If it is possible for nothing to exist forever, than it also must be possible for something to exist forever. If two things cannot exist at the same time in the same place, than something cannot exist with nothing. If a cause must be greater than or equal to its affect, than something cannot cause nothing. Something an infinite amount of times is still something.

Something exists, therefore I humbly assert that “nothing” as the term is commonly known, does not exist, has never existed, and will never exist. The question is, what is something? Something can only be confined to what “It is”.

Since “It is” cannot also be “It is not”, than in human terms, “It is” cannot lie. “It is” cannot be both life and death, both good and evil, both light and dark or both intelligent and stupid. Since an affect cannot be greater than its cause, “It is” must be life, good, light, and intelligent. “It is” time, therefore when we move through time, we are moving through “It”. “It is” whatever it says it is. Anyone who says something contrary to what “It is” is not telling the truth. Anyone who disagrees with “It” is wrong.

172

Evolution or Creation??

by dottie in

well i know i may be opening a can of worms here.... but after what we were taught in the wts about creation...and now that you may know more about evolution... which do you think you'd choose to believe more??.

myself...i am leaning towards evolution...but then i read things that make me think otherwise.

so i do find it confusing sometimes .

Chap

funkyderek said:

The earth is simply not a closed system from a thermodynamic perspective. If it was, it's temperature would constantly decrease until it reached the temperature of the universe around it (about 3K). Don't worry, in the long term it will, but not before allowing a lot of interesting things to happen here.

The above statement seems contradictory. I guess in the short term, since the earth receives energy from the sun, it is an open system. But since the earth is part of the universe which is a closed system, it is part of a closed system. Therefore, the entropy of earth is both increasing and decreasing? Am I the only one that sees a problem with this? What about the entropy of the other planets which receive energy from a sun? I guess we can say the entropy is increasing because we don't have to explain anything away.

Sorry about the delayed response but I only have time to visit this forum about once or twice a week.

172

Evolution or Creation??

by dottie in

well i know i may be opening a can of worms here.... but after what we were taught in the wts about creation...and now that you may know more about evolution... which do you think you'd choose to believe more??.

myself...i am leaning towards evolution...but then i read things that make me think otherwise.

so i do find it confusing sometimes .

Chap

If my understanding of the second law of thermodynamics is accurate, order always moves toward disorder. In other words, things in the universe were better yesterday than they are today. In order for one to prove evolution true, he has to prove the second (and first) law of thermodynamics to be false.

funkyderek said:

Your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics isn't accurate. Entropy increases in a closed system, but the earth is not a closed system. Evolution doesn't violate any physical laws.

My lack of understanding may not be in the second law of thermodynamics but in what is meant by a "closed system". Isn't the earth part of the universe that is the whole system in which this law applies? My understanding is that the whole universe is deteriorating. What is the reason that the earth is not considered part of a closed system? Is it because if it were, evolution would have to be thrown out? Then the reasoning would follow; since evolution cannot be thrown out, the earth must not be a "closed system".

16

Do You Think Your Faith Was Real?

by sandy in

i was baptized at 13 and i never felt a close personal relationship with god.

my prayers were without emotion.

i nver felt close to god.

Chap

I have not lost a mate to judge that.....but I have seen dubs lose their mates as if they never expect to see them again. It always made me wonder how stongly they really believed in seeing them again.

I don't know if I really believed deep down inside the earth would be a paradise soon either.

( in fairness I suppose this is true of all fundies too )

I was never a JW. I am what people consider a fundy. Although you can say the above is true for many fundies, it is not true of me. We pray for people at church who are sick. Some of them have been 90 years old with a terminal disease yet we pray for healing. I don't understand that. I guess it may be politically incorrect to pray that God would take their soul peacefully into heaven or rest. My faith rests in the fact that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Luke, a doctor and the best historian of the time testifies of this. So do many others. The more I read and think about God, the less I fear dying because I know his word is true.

30

Resurection of "Can any believer answer this?"

by Chap in

hi all.. there was an interesting thread a while back that i have a few things to add to.

i am new so i didn't know if anyone would see a post i would put there since the thread happened a few months ago.

it is going to take a while to put all my thoughts on the subject.

Chap

I was going to rebut some of the things Pom said but I don't know if I should since I don't think he's around to defend what I say.