-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What Proof Does Evolution Offer For Natural Beginning Of Life
- Thread starter kbc_1963
- Start date
Mr Spinkles
Mr
It was about 14 billion years ago, if my memory of my last lecture serves me.HelpMe said:
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
Spinkles--For learnings sake, do you know how scientists are able to predict the age of the total universe, i.e., before the earth and solar system was created, etc?
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Well, it's a bit complicated, but here's the simplified version: let's say you and I are walking in opposite directions from each other at 5 miles/hour, and we are 1 mile apart. By dividing the distance by the relative velocity we find that 1/5 of an hour ago, the distance between you and I was zero. In the same way, if we know the apparent velocity of a galaxy, and we know the distance between it and us, we can determine how long ago the distance between us and that galaxy was zero--this length of time is the approximate age of the universe.
14 billion years is an estimate, of course, as the distances to other galaxies is uncertain and the apparent velocities of other galaxies are not all the same.
14 billion years is an estimate, of course, as the distances to other galaxies is uncertain and the apparent velocities of other galaxies are not all the same.
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
Ah perfect--I understand. Wow, that's so interesting!
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
What do you think that the univerce is HelpMe? perhaps then I can answer that for you.
wa:do
wa:do
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
well than based on that definition, then the univerce did not exist before the big bang... unless you hold to the super-string theory. At least it did not exist as we know it now.
wa:do
wa:do
Mr Spinkles
Mr
No one knows for sure, HelpMe. That's why this field is so exciting.HelpMe said:
Druidus
Keeper of the Grove
Then so, too, must the field of theology/religion be. You don't know how God would go about creating the universe, do you? Or how she got the materials? Or how she existed? Why she existed? If anything, theology/religion is just as "unsatisfying" as science/physics/quantum physics.
HelpMe
·´sociopathic meanderer`·
1-there was a reason i intentionally included the word 'perhaps'.so your use of the word 'must' is erroneous.Druidus said:
2-with this laughable statement, you seem to have a horrible inability to grasp the concept* of 'god'.
*which is of course that 'god' has no rules to follow.
3-this is why i included the word 'perhaps', so it may be left as an unattacked opinion.
Druidus
Keeper of the Grove
Perhaps is there, to a degree. The word itself no, but the concept. It is inferred that for my statement to be correct, yours would have to be as well.
Indeed, but this is your concept. In my view, no God can be omnipotent. Truly, there are some rules. How could a God create a stone that she couldn't lift? Or a book too complex for her to read? For these reasons, by simple logic, we know that a God could never be "all-powerful", at least IMHO.
I did not attack your opinion. I merely expanded on it, logically.
HelpMe
·´sociopathic meanderer`·
why do you refer to 'god' as a gender?Druidus said:
although scripturally i find no reason to call 'god' omnipotent, i myself need only to call 'god' self-sufficient(or 'the source of all reality known or not'), unlike all of 'god''s creation.
there are several ways to approach the question, of which i will only list a few i like.
That is, if god did not have the ability to render himself non-omnipotent, THEN he wouldn't be omnipotent. The demand that God create round triangles is a demand for God to work ontological nonsense. the question is not logical if God is infinitely powerful. infinite power cannot out due infinite power. it is not logical, for you have the infinite competing against the infinite... and in this case its only one subject.
In order to measure the power of something, you typically compare it to another thing. In this case, the question is trying to contrast Gods power to Gods power. Since His power is constant and infinite, there is no way He can create a limitation for it.This is a competition where there is only one subject, and since that subject is infinitely powerful, there is no way it can defeat itself.
In asking this question, the questioner has already assumed the existence of gravity. By definition, God created everything. Hence, God created gravity. Since God can create gravity, he can certainly make it disappear. So God can lift any stone. Put another way, this question could become: if God were to have an arm wrestling match between his right arm and left arm, which arm would win? Both arms belong to God. This is not a contest; there is no winning or losing. Therefore this is a stupid question.God can create a rock He chooses not to lift.One automatically in thinking about god assumes that His power is related to physical assertion.'god' merely has to say or will something to happen for it to happen. Weight and mass are thus restrictions that we have imposed on Him but which in reality do not affect 'god'.
However.God could then decide to give Himself enough extra strength so that He could lift the object, and then later decide to make the object heavier so that He could no longer lift it with the extra strenght He previously gave to Himself. He could then reduce the mass of the object so that He could lift it, but then reduce the amount of strength He gave to Himself such that He would be unable to lift it. This increase/decrease of the mass/strenght variables could go on forever rendering the question's assumed meaning of omnipotent self contradictory and is unanswerable.
could you beat yourself in a race?stupid circular question IMHO.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
HelpMe the first blast of energy created the materials for the formation of the univerce. The first super-heavy elements (some with half lives measured in fractions of seconds like Roentgenium wich has a half life of 15 milliseconds) quickly broke down and created other lighter elements. The elements gathered into clouds and formed the early univerce.
agian I point out : http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/acosmbb.html
perhaps this one will help you as well: http://origins.stsci.edu/under/understanding.shtml
wa:do
agian I point out : http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/acosmbb.html
perhaps this one will help you as well: http://origins.stsci.edu/under/understanding.shtml
wa:do
Druidus
Keeper of the Grove
Because there is no word to define a God as a neutral entity. Except for "it", which is, in effect, an insult, as it refers mainly to non-living entities and concepts. Therefore, I use a gender word. Seeing as how I prefer a semblance of balance to occur, I use the feminine version of the word, because most choose the masculine.
You, too, have referred to your God as an gender bearing entity.
I had the foresight to see that you would post an answer such as that. Answer the non-physical one. Can she create such a complex book? In this case, she is fighting against her own intellect. Perhaps to simplify it, we can say that she wants to develop a riddle which is harder then she can solve. Can her mentality come up with this? No. She cannot create that which she cannot answer, therefore, she is not omnisentient, perhaps, an aspect of omnipotency. Omnipotency means the power to do anything and everything, which she now cannot do, no matter how you put it. Therefore, even a God is limited by some rules.
Oh?
And that's not omnipotency? However, it is contradicted later, so it is unclear, I suppose:
HelpMe
·´sociopathic meanderer`·
your question is still circular*, assuming(who ever said 'god' abided to our law of gravity?), and thus invalid.Druidus said:
*can you beat yourself in a race?can you read faster than yourself?
i have only referred to 'god' in gender by habbit, i mean nothing of it.el-shaddai is feminine, but in many instances 'god' is 'biblically' painted as masculine.'god' has no reason to be gender specific or no equal opposite to reproduce with, so i think gender is a moot issue.i do not believe 'it' is an insulting way to refer to an almighty, as i nor you or anyone knows the almighty's mind.
i'm sorry you're in a state of mind so as to take some biblical verses literally when unnecesarry(sp) or out of context so as to create a contradiction, i have a few suggestions for you.try verses such as jude1:5"...ye know all things..." and ask the subject an unanswerable question(such as your neighbor's mother's maiden name).(please don't debate this here, there is a thread entitled 'biblical contradictions' or something to that effect for such dialogue)
answer
to say he couldn't do something can very well imply that it was against his will, not that it was impossible.