Greg Jennings
New member
How is it illogical that the universe had no beginning.....
But logical that God had no beginning?
It's the same argument for both, yet one is somehow logical but the other is not? Only in YEC-land, I suppose.
"Far Too Wondrous" --Darwin
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
How is it illogical that the universe had no beginning.....
But logical that God had no beginning?
It's the same argument for both, yet one is somehow logical but the other is not? Only in YEC-land, I suppose.
6days
New member
We know the universe DID have a beginning.But its fine if you wish to argue otherwise. You then are acknowleging that something has existed uncaused throughout all eternity. Then we can look at evidence and logic to see what this uncaused cause was. I think the most logical and scientific explanation is that "In the beginning God created..."How is it illogical that the universe had no beginning.....
But logical that God had no beginning?
God is the uncaused cause who caused the beginning of our universe and life.
Blah blah Darwin blah intelligence blah genome blah blah complexity blah blah blah special sky friend.
Stuart
Says who?
Did your god have a cause?
Actually, don't bother answering any of that. Whatever you say will be utterly mindless.
Stuart
Jose Fly
New member
Then how do you propose we test and investigate God?
6days
New member
Typical evolutionist argument.
Greg Jennings
New member
The depth of your illusion is truly fascinating. Nothing in this post makes sense, 6! You can't pretend to be a scientist and disregard all science that refutes you in the same breath
Hedshaker
New member
Actually God did have a beginning. Some anonymous bible author invented him :sheep: :angrymob:
Look in the mirror, God created us
6days
New member
Hedshaker
New member
Lon
Well-known member
Yep:
Samuel Adams said the Declaration and Constitution are inseparable (can't legally be separated either, they both are ratified by all 50 states, legally).
The Constitution declares that Jesus is Lord. It was 'not' an over-used colloquial to have placed it purposefully there. That historical-rewrite is political agenda and false. The phrase was intentionally added a few days after the convention started so it was done on purpose.
It also mentions 'natural' law which was nothing but a god-centered worldview of men's place in the world as well as their rights and was related to William Blackstone's work regarding men's rights under God and the law.
You are from Israel, wouldn't expect you to know that, especially with the current animosity (oddly) toward Christianity. Here is a good article that concludes:
All 50 state Constitutions make specific reference to God, on purpose.
The Articles of Confederation were specific in naming Jesus Christ and only King and remain in effect except where the Constitution would have ruled in their place. Such is never supposed to be a usurping of that agreement and document.
You can see Bible references and quotes that make up about 34% of the source material used to make the constitution and establish laws while those men were in assembly.
A divorce of God from the documents that founded our country are simply a desire by those wishing its demise, fabricated and often enacted into unjust law against it. We've had civil unrest in the past and so are not unaccustomed to it. It may be this one will be won simply by re-establishing our intent and purpose as "one nation, under God, indivisible" because "In God We Trust" in this year of our Lord, 2015-6
Jose Fly
New member
The Declaration of Independence carries no weight or force of law.
Yet interestingly, some (like Oklahoma) have specific prohibitions against the state government from supporting religion in any way, even indirectly.
The Articles of Confederation also have no legal weight or force of law.
The founders specifically and deliberately set up a secular form of government (as evidenced by the prohibition against any religious test for public office). That's all I want.
6days
New member
But Heshaker.... you deny evidence. You somehow think that science is not truth and knowlege, but instead secular opinions, and acceptance of psuedo-scientific ideas like expansion, and life from non life.
The evidence points to an Intelligent Omnipotent Omniscient Creator.
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
Heard that before.
Is that where you live? The SCOTUS will have to outlaw each and EVERY state constitution that pleads to God Almighty to enable them to do what's right :think: (a LOT further away from secularism than you thought? Discouraged?)
Yep, heard that before too. The pendulum is on the way back, not going further out.
Well, if that was 'all' you wanted, I doubt we'd be here, Jose.
Jose Fly
New member
Interplanner
Well-known member
A government that is pluralist can still be religious. You're confusing being fair with being secular. Some of the founders said they were concerned that without enough moral and spiritual strength, the nation might even be harmed by some of the articles of the Constitution. It was on an In God We Trust basis.
Lon
Well-known member
I am ever amazed that Steven Hawking said "Philosophy is dead." It generally is true that scientists do not tend to think philosophically nor metaphysically, but the following is logical and not too difficult to follow and is self-attesting...
Proof set:
1) Something from something = something, always (law of conservation of energy)
2) Nothing added to nothing = nothing, always (Ex nihilo nihil fit, I've seen logically unsatisfactory 'speculation' this isn't true, it is untenable)
.: Something has always eternally existed
Something has to be stable because eternal means exactly that (definition of eternal; law of conservation of energy)
Next proof set (provided I or many accept the proof or that another is unable to sufficiently challenge it but with emoting objection (not logic)
1) You and I are something (law of conservation of energy, self-evidentiary existence)
2) We cannot have come from nothing (Ex nihilo nihil fit, even a primordial ooze demands 'something')
.: Something other than ourselves made us, therefore we have a 'creator/god' (undisputable, have not proven such to be 'intelligent' but proven to be true, never-the-less)
Third proof set
1) People exist believing there is significant meaning and purpose
2) Nothing from Nothing = no significant meaning(Ex nihilo nihil fit)
.: Whatever made us, has given us significant meaning and purpose
OR we are wrong and it doesn't matter if we kill one another because we are wrong ("wrong" being a very interesting caveat of admission, btw, it wouldn't 'matter' and there'd be no right/wrong)
Fourth proof set
1) Some people have no problem with another being insignificant/disposable etc.
2) Most people absolutely (important) disagree
.: most of us believe in significant purpose and absolutes that ONLY our creator/god gave us (true, whether yet personal or impersonal, such indeed gave us 'personal values')
Fifth proof set (and so forth). This is the way logic/mathematics works. You can 'try' to eliminate parts of the proof sets but the rebuttal must be able to stand up to scrutiny
Such leads one 'logically' to a conclusion that God exists. We all base our lives and values off of these conclusions and there are times we can show another his/her logical inconsistencies, but I will NEVER for the life of me, understand Hawking saying philosophy is dead. It is the same as saying 'mathematics' is dead. They are both provable values. It makes no sense and I'm ever shocked, especially at scientists who don't seem to grasp this.
Some like Hilston or AMR etc. can come behind and do a cleaner job of this, but I believe it is sound.
Last edited: