The Atheist Thread - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Sean Trane View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Prog Folk

Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20403

Posted: January 08 2007 at 10:59

Paradoxically, taking the dialectic path in quest of comprehending how the matter could appear out of nothing leads to discovering God as someone who could create it.

Now, in the spirit of fairness, a question to our religious faction:

How do dinosaurs fit the dogma of the six-day creation that allegedly happened about 6000 years ago?

I will answer this because of my Catholic background (I was subject to this brainwashing until the age of 9 or 10), but I will defend the way to write a story >> one has to manage to keep interest in a fiction or else the listener will lose the plot and the interest >> and the bible is a fiction. But in the term of day is a metaphor for the millions of years of Earth's creation. If that so-called god created Earth (and the rest of the universe) and the day is only one revolution of the earth on its own axis, >>> which of course means nothing if you are busy creating the planet from another point in the universe. Obviously this so-called creator would not stand in the matter he is creating (unless he is like Merlin).

let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword

Snow Dog

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995

Posted: January 08 2007 at 11:19

A day in biblical terms represents a 1000 years.

IVNORD

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191

Posted: January 08 2007 at 13:20

Sean Trane wrote:

IVNORD wrote:

A question to atheists: Before the Big Bang, etc., where did the first atom come from? By the atom, I really mean the most elementary particle you can think of, the tiniest shred of the matter. >>> The first atom was probably created by the big bang since the matter and the anti-matter are supposedly (as far as our science and understanding goes, so far) amounting to nothing. I suppose humankind will know more in centuries to come once we have mastered the space travel.Both the matter and the anti-matter consist of particles, i.e. the matter, thus for the purpose of this discussion they are identical. For this matter (no pun intended), where did the matter and/or anti-matter come from? With many reservations, I am willing to buy your argument that we will learn that in the future, but right now materialism as it is cannot explain the nature of its base in its own terms. Thus, the validity of materialism as a philosophy is suspect.Since the philosophical base for the theory of atheism is materialism >>> says you!!! you are mixing atheism with communism (which I remind you is not about private ownership) just like the usual joe is drawing quick links between religious and conservateurism to capitalism, which most of us atheist resist making such judgments!!!, I am not mixing atheism with communism, which is not only about private ownership but we can discuss it some other time. All I said was that atheism, not being a philosophy, has its philosophical roots in materialism. If you contest it, we could hardly make any progress here.it should be noted that even the most militant materialist Karl Marx could never answer the question (maybe with today's human knowledge, he might have found that so called answer) . You think he might have? Why don’t YOU try? You appear to posses that human knowledge.

Instead, Marxism puts forward an incoherent idea of the matter being eternal in time and space, thus effectively deity-ing it by making it omnipresent and omnipotent >>> again this incredible (and daft) concept of having something "eternal" (such as matter and atoms) and because of it, worshipping it >> THERE IS NO WORSHIPPING IN ATHEISM OR DEITY >>I didn’t say worshipping. I said “deity-ing.” Please note – not deifying for the sole purpose of depriving people like you of a possibility to throw a synonym at me. Yet you did. Marx practically branded the matter a god by implicitly admitting he could not define it and by resorting to giving the matter eternal presence. Similarly, Judaism doesn’t claim to have understanding of God (even prohibits pronounce His name) although there’s no requirement for Judaism to do so as it admits that God is above human comprehension. Materialism on the other hand claims that everything can be explained from the point of view of the matter. this might just be hard to understand to some. You’re getting militant and intolerant – a sign of inability to argue effectively.

Paradoxically, taking the dialectic path in quest of comprehending how the matter could appear out of nothing leads to discovering God as someone who could create it. Now, in the spirit of fairness, a question to our religious faction: How do dinosaurs fit the dogma of the six-day creation that allegedly happened about 6000 years ago?

I will answer this because of my Catholic background (I was subject to this brainwashing until the age of 9 or 10), but I will defend the way to write a story >> one has to manage to keep interest in a fiction or else the listener will lose the plot and the interest[IMG>height=17 alt=Wink src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley2.gif" width=17 align=absMiddle> >> and the bible is a fiction[IMG>height=17 alt=Tongue src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley17.gif" width=17 align=absMiddle>. But in the term of day is a metaphor for the millions of years of Earth's creation. If that so-called god created Earth (and the rest of the universe) and the day is only one revolution of the earth on its own axis, >>> which of course means nothing if you are busy creating the planet from another point in the universe. Obviously this so-called creator would not stand in the matter he is creating (unless he is like Merlin). You don’t qualify to answer this as you belong to the opposite faction (just kidding). The commercial side of any organized religion turns me off too. But you tend to confuse religion and God. Anyway, let’s wait for the answer from our theistic friends.

Edited by IVNORD - January 08 2007 at 13:22

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: January 08 2007 at 14:19

kazansky wrote:

Well, the Bible never mention about dinosaurs, but then, there were fossils to prove that dinosaurs were exists (i never see any fossils though). So, how do those dinosaurs were created in the first place ? If we following the Big Bang theory, how all those creatures (animals and humans) were created then ?

I’m not a fan of the literal interpretation of the Bible but it’s clear that the dinosaurs are described in the Book of Job as BEHEMOTH:

The text from the Book of Job 40 (King James Version Bible) is as follows:

15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his thighs are wrapped together.
18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.
19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach [unto him].
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares.

The description is clear, specially when making a comparison of his tail with a tree, the description of his bones is very relevant as we will see later.

It’s clear that the dinosaurs didn’t coexisted with the man (This is because some creationists say that both coexisted and this is a flawed argument), we all know that, but don’t ask a semi nomad to know how old the bones are, they probably discovered some fossils and believed it was from a recently dead animal when as a fact it surely had millions of years.

It’s also very likely according to some studies that in those days maybe a remaining (but much smaller) SAUROPOD (That fits perfectly with the description of the Bible) today extinct, this with the bones found could easily create the description made, which is very accurate according to many Paleontologists.

The Bible has the knowledge, but we should not understand their chronology as we understand it now, the Bible says that a day for God is like 1,000 years for a man, so I insist when pre alphabetical and highly inaccurate forms of written language are translated, a lot is lost in the course of the translation, the 1,000 years may had been really 1’000,000 or 100’000,000 years (Remember that in Roman numbers, for example, a short line on the top of a number multiplied it for ten times and that lines may be easily lost in damaged pieces of scripture in stones or early forms of paper).

So even when IMO we must not understand the Bible literally, we must neither reject what it says merely because we are unable to understand the symbolism and the successive inaccurate translations of the original documents.

Iván

IVNORD

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191

Posted: January 08 2007 at 17:25

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

I’m not a fan of the literal interpretation of the Bible but it’s clear that the dinosaurs The rules of the game must apply to all parties. If I offered atheists not to take the term “atom” literally, why do you think the term “dinosaurs” should mean just that? "Dinosaurs" equates to "all Life before Man." are described in the Book of Job as BEHEMOTH That's a very liberal interpretation of the word and may very well be wishful thinking on your part. Here’s a link to Wikipedia featuring the same passage from the Bible and some other useful stuff about the behemoth/hippo relation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behemoth

The description is clear, specially when making a comparison of his tail with a tree, the description of his bones is very relevant as we will see later.

It’s clear that the dinosaurs didn’t coexisted with the man Bingo! That’s why Noah didn’t take dinosaurs along on his trip! Seriously, doesn’t it mean dinosaurs existed before Man appeared, i.e. before the 6-day creation? (This is because some creationists say that both coexisted and this is a flawed argument), we all know that, but don’t ask a semi nomad to know how old the bones are, they probably discovered some fossils and believed it was from a recently dead animal when as a fact it surely had millions of years.

The Bible has the knowledge, but we should not understand their chronology as we understand it now, the Bible says that a day for God is like 1,000 years for a man, so I insist when pre alphabetical and highly inaccurate forms of written language are translated, a lot is lost in the course of the translation, the 1,000 years may had been really 1’000,000 or 100’000,000 years (Remember that in Roman numbers, for example, a short line on the top of a number multiplied it for ten times and that lines may be easily lost in damaged pieces of scripture in stones or early forms of paper).

So even when IMO we must not understand the Bible literally, we must neither reject what it says merely because we are unable to understand the symbolism and the successive inaccurate translations of the original documents. I can accept the symbolism and the imperfections of translation of the Bible. I can even go as far as totally ignore the theory of evolution. After all, it’s just an educated guess, a theory, potentially flawed by default because of its materialist origins. But whatever the multiple of 1000 you elect to apply here, how do you squeeze in a few billion years of pre-historic life?

Edited by IVNORD - January 08 2007 at 17:59

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: January 08 2007 at 20:17

Ivnord wrote:

The rules of the game must apply to all parties. If I offered atheists not to take the term “atom” literally, why do you think the term “dinosaurs” should mean just that? "Dinosaurs" equates to "all Life before Man."

Honestly don’t get your point Ivnord, the term dinosaurs is applied to animals existing before the man, the bones are there, they don’t lie, the Carbon 14 doesn’t lie either, the age of those bones is proved, lbeyond any doubt.

That's a very liberal interpretation of the word and may very well be wishful thinking on your part. Here’s a link to Wikipedia featuring the same passage from the Bible and some other useful stuff about the behemoth/hippo relation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behemoth

Firs I must say that I never implied dinosaurs coexisted with man, maybe a couple of species of sauropods survived the glacial age but of course in another stage of evolution.

I believe Job or their coetaneous saw some bones (fossils) and probably some large animal in the distance, so probably they believed this animals coexisted with them being tha is was impossible for this people to know the age of the fossils.

Now to the point, I see you omitted specifically the description made in the bible to use the hippopotamus parallel:

· He moveth his tail like a cedar

As far as I know, the hippopotamus doesn’t have a tail long enough as a cedar

· His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.

Doesn’t fit in the description of the hippopotamus bones by no means being that an hippo is not much bigger than a man.

Surely the mountains bring him forth food,

As far as I know, the hippopotamus doesn’t find it’s food in the mountains.

He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens

I believe the hippopotamus doesn’t rest under the trees but most of the time almost fully covered by the water, as a fact all day except a few hours in the night doesn’t leave the water

I believe the logic makes us believe Job’s book is talking about dinosaur bones found by the ancient man without knowing it was extint for millions of years.

.

Bingo! That’s why Noah didn’t take dinosaurs along on his trip! Seriously, doesn’t it mean dinosaurs existed before Man appeared, i.e. before the 6-day creation?

I honestly doubt the Bible talks about two different creations, casually the date of creation the Bible talks about is similar to the date when the first pre-alphabetic languages appeared, so probably the story of creation passed from mouth to mouth until about 6,000 years ago when it was transcript to the first written language forms, most surely those details are lost with the successive translations.

I can accept the symbolism and the imperfections of translation of the Bible. I can even go as far as totally ignore the theory of evolution. After all, it’s just an educated guess, a theory, potentially flawed by default because of its materialist origins.

That’s the difference, I’m a Catholic but as the Pope I believe in Evolution as much more than an educated guess, but more like an almost proven truth and potentially the most accurate and logical explanation.

The idea of the Catholic Church is that only when man developed to certain stage of evolution, God decided it was time to provide this being of a soul, something that was in his master plan but we are unable to understand

But whatever the multiple of 1000 you elect to apply here, how do you squeeze in a few billion years of pre-historic life?

Think in something easier, the man that used the first stones to write in them, cared very little of what happened before, their history (As we know it) starts at that point, all the past are legends that were passed from mouth to mouth and generation to generation and of course each generation added and subtracted some important parts and of course made it simple enough to be understood by the common man.

In the worst scenario, the difference between One Thousand and one billion are only 6 zeros that can easily been lost in the translations because the concept of zero was developed long after those days.

I’m not saying I own the truth, only trying to use logic and find a possible explanation.

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - January 09 2007 at 11:22

rileydog22 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 24 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 8844

Posted: January 08 2007 at 20:23

It is entirely consistant with physics (and it has been shown in particle accelerators to occur)that energy (in the form of gamma rays and such) can be transformed into matter and antimatter, according to E=mc^2. The universe immediately after the Big Bang was full of energy in the form of very high energy radiation, which on a quantum level would "condense" to particles of matter. This quantum-level effect occured at such a fast pace that it formed large amounts of matter even on a relativistic (or macroscopic) scale. These particles (quarks, electrons, etc.) then formed atoms (99% of them hydrogen) which clumped together into nebulae, which formed stars.

Arrrghus

Forum Senior Member

Joined: July 21 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5296

Posted: January 08 2007 at 20:25

I'm not an atheist, nor a true agnostic. I believe there IS a god, but it (yes, it) doesn't really interfere with anything. Maybe, we're on an infinite cycle of gods and universes.

I believe Christianity to be like every other religion since before time: a mythology created to explain and validate existence.

Chus

Prog Reviewer

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: Venezuela
Status: Offline
Points: 1991

Posted: January 08 2007 at 20:50

rileydog22 wrote:

Which leads to the next question: where did that spark of energy come from?

Jesus Gabriel

rileydog22 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 24 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 8844

Posted: January 08 2007 at 21:07

Chus wrote:

rileydog22 wrote:

Which leads to the next question: where did that spark of energy come from?

Well, religion doesn't have an answer either; where did God come from?

I don't think that question nessessarily needs an answer; for our purposes, it suffices entirely to simply say that that spark of energy existed. It seems to me that that question will never be possible to answer, so why bother asking it?

Chus

Prog Reviewer

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: Venezuela
Status: Offline
Points: 1991

Posted: January 08 2007 at 21:15

well I can't prove it but I have faith. however what you said about energy was interesting... but I guess the only way to know the truth would be via time travel (not likely to exist anyway

IMO)

Jesus Gabriel

Passionist View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 14 2005
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 1119

Posted: January 08 2007 at 21:19

I think it's pretty easy as a whole picture. Scientists say that space gets wider all the time, I believe this. But, can you think of an object or a space getting wider without replacing something else? So what is behind the border of space, if there is one? Where will you get if you travel long enough? will you come back to where you started from or just go on until eternity? And when you think of a space in general, can you imagine it without borders? In fact, can you imagine anything without borders? A space is defined by it's borders. And once we go as far as trying to figure out what's behind the biggest space, we get lost.

Don't say there's nothing. What is nothing? A feeble excuse for not thinking. Because we can only imagine something there that ends somewhere. So this is where I stop for my own health. I can't tell it so I'll either stop or here's the catch: invent a substitute.

what's behind it all? God, he made it all. And all you need to do is believe, no need to think. No offense people, but none of it makes no sense.

JrKASperov View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: July 07 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 904

Posted: January 09 2007 at 02:04

rileydog22 wrote:

Well, religion doesn't have an answer either; where did God come from?

This is a typical sort of question that is irrelevant. Not because we don't need an answer, but because the question itself isn't about God (at least not the God of the omnipresent type). God was, is and shall be. He has no beginning and no end, so He doesn't really 'come from anymore'. Indeed, 'coming from' isn't even a verb that applies to Him. We don't ask what blue smells like or what salt sounds because those things don't apply to them.

Epic.

toolis

Forum Senior Member

Joined: April 26 2006
Location: MacedoniaGreece
Status: Offline
Points: 1678

Posted: January 09 2007 at 02:13

people are fighting for a qestion that doesn't really exist...

does God exist?

how can you raise a question about sth that is beyond humans? and don't give me that "the fact that you can't prove he exists doesn't mena he doesn't.." cause it's totally irrational... i could claim that our creator is a giant purple glove and since you can't prove it's not my question is valid...

God's existence is nothing but faith...

start worrying about you moral code and let everything else to nature...

-music is like pornography...

sometimes amateurs turn us on, even more...

-sometimes you are the pigeon and sometimes you are the statue...

Sean Trane View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Prog Folk

Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20403

Posted: January 09 2007 at 07:58

JrKASperov wrote:

rileydog22 wrote:

Well, religion doesn't have an answer either; where did God come from?

Still, there must've been a time before your god and before he created his realm/havoc!!

let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword

Sean Trane View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Prog Folk

Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20403

Posted: January 09 2007 at 08:44

I edited some stuff for clarity's sake.

IVNORD wrote:

Sean Trane wrote:

Since the philosophical base for the theory of atheism is materialism >>> says you!!! you are mixing atheism with communism (which I remind you is not about private ownership) just like the usual joe is drawing quick links between religious and conservateurism to capitalism, which most of us atheist resist making such judgments!!!, I am not mixing atheism with communism, which is not only about private ownership but we can discuss it some other time. All I said was that atheism, not being a philosophy, has its philosophical roots in materialism. If you contest it, we could hardly make any progress here. Hang on a second, I misunderstood your meaning of materialism: You speak of materialism as a science of the matters and atoms, where I had understood it in terms of having it all (greed) and private ownership. English not being my first language, I am not aware of the studies of the Big Bang and matter/anti-matter being called materialism. Maybe it is so, but I was not familiar with that use of materialism. Usually it is used in terms of greed and other venal matters. and since you mentioned Marx and by deduction marxism and its derivate communism, I assumed you were linking private property with communal property.

Strictly in terms of philosophy, you're right!! Atheism is not a philosophy (although it can be the base of many different philosophies, even in terms of spirituality) but neither are religions (which is why Buddhism is rejecting the religion word and replacing it with the word of philosophy: but I see monks, monasteries, hostels, altars and prayers >> religion to me) , but to strictly link atheism to matter is strongly reductive.

Instead, Marxism puts forward an incoherent idea of the matter being eternal in time and space, thus effectively deity-ing it by making it omnipresent and omnipotent >>> again this incredible (and daft) concept of having something "eternal" (such as matter and atoms) and because of it, worshipping it >> THERE IS NO WORSHIPPING IN ATHEISM OR DEITY >>I didn’t say worshipping. I said “deity-ing.” Please note – not deifying for the sole purpose of depriving people like you of a possibility to throw a synonym at me. Yet you did. Marx practically branded the matter a god by implicitly admitting he could not define it and by resorting to giving the matter eternal presence. Similarly, Judaism doesn’t claim to have understanding of God (even prohibits pronounce His name) although there’s no requirement for Judaism to do so as it admits that God is above human comprehension. Materialism on the other hand claims that everything can be explained from the point of view of the matter. Well the idea of a god and religion are indissociable, because of the fact that if there is a deity, it must be worshipped, which of course is the first error that every religions do. Because the worshipping is the part where you surrender and submit to the "authority".

Furthermore, I do not consider Marx as an authority in Atheism, just another participant. Atheism does not have any authority preaching any kind of dogma ands telling others what to think and how to think it. I believe you read somewhere that Marx is make matter a deity and therefore making your "Materialism" a philosophy. I do not know about Marx (I find his texts unreadable, so I just read a few "translations" of hiis work, but I refuse to make him some kind of prophet as you seem to want to trap atheists in that way.

Paradoxically, taking the dialectic path in quest of comprehending how the matter could appear out of nothing leads to discovering God as someone who could create it. Now, in the spirit of fairness, a question to our religious faction: How do dinosaurs fit the dogma of the six-day creation that allegedly happened about 6000 years ago?

I will answer this because of my Catholic background (I was subject to this brainwashing until the age of 9 or 10), but I will defend the way to write a story >> one has to manage to keep interest in a fiction or else the listener will lose the plot and the interest[IMG>height=17 alt=Wink src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley2.gif" width=17 align=absMiddle> >> and the bible is a fiction[IMG>height=17 alt=Tongue src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley17.gif" width=17 align=absMiddle>. But in the term of day is a metaphor for the millions of years of Earth's creation. If that so-called god created Earth (and the rest of the universe) and the day is only one revolution of the earth on its own axis, >>> which of course means nothing if you are busy creating the planet from another point in the universe. Obviously this so-called creator would not stand in the matter he is creating (unless he is like Merlin). You don’t qualify to answer this as you belong to the opposite faction (just kidding). Why not, I am scoring points for them. And I was subjected to this stuff. The commercial side of any organized religion turns me off too. But you tend to confuse religion and God. Read up above. Both are indissociable. Religions need gods to exists, and if gods did not need religions, they would intervene and act against those who would abuse his image for their own needs and powers.

Anyway, let’s wait for the answer from our theistic friends.

let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword

IVNORD

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191

Posted: January 09 2007 at 09:28

Ivan,

It occurred to me this morning that I totally missed your point. While demanding a full generalization from you, I kept taking the 6-day term literally. It was foolish of me, especially as I am acutely aware of the rhetorical power and flexibility of the Old Testament. I apologize for that. My false sense of easy victory blindsided me.

So the 6 days could really be 6 billion years. The behemoth analogy does not really matter as the Bible should not be interpreted literally and I do not expect a thorough classification of dinosaurs to be included in it. I accept your argument as I do believe that God created everything. But that’s about as much of a creationist in me as it could be. Our ways do part here. Although I respect religious feelings of any individual, I personally don’t accept any organized religion’s philosophy.

IVN

P.S. To clarify things, the theory of evolution has as plausible an explanation of its subject as does materialism of many aspects of every day life. Evolution is a particular case in the grand picture of things as is materialism, its philosophical base. The problem is that materialism is corrupt at its core by claiming it knows everything, thus making all its derivatives suspect.

IVNORD

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191

Posted: January 09 2007 at 09:30

Chus wrote:

rileydog22 wrote:

Which leads to the next question: where did that spark of energy come from?

Chus,

You did that for me…

kazansky

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 24 2006
Location: Indonesia
Status: Offline
Points: 5085

Posted: January 09 2007 at 09:38

Sean Trane wrote:

if gods did not need religions, they would intervene and act against those who would abuse his image for their own needs and powers.

But then, even with religions, there're still a lot of power abuse, in the name of God

The devil we blame our atrocities on is really just each one of us.

IVNORD

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191

Posted: January 09 2007 at 09:38

rileydog22 wrote:

Chus wrote:

rileydog22 wrote:

Which leads to the next question: where did that spark of energy come from?

Well, religion doesn't have an answer either; where did God come from?I don't think that question nessessarily needs an answer; for our purposes, it suffices entirely to simply say that that spark of energy existed. It seems to me that that question will never be possible to answer, so why bother asking it?

Spin is a bad manner of arguing. You claimed you knew the answer. So do answer. As per your question, we don’t know where God came from because God is beyond our understanding. If you state the same about the matter, namely, “that question will never be possible to answer,” then you in fact deify the matter.