Expelled!

**Wildtim** · 04-17-2008, 04:59 PM

And Richard Dawkins is?

**JMS** · 04-17-2008, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

Every thinking person knows the universe was created by the Great Turtles. With the help of Zeus and Hercules.
Why isn't serious discussion/attention being given to this explanation? I can find you a number of scholars who will attest to this theory of creation.

Praise to the Great Turtles!! Hazzah!!!

So you believe that everything we see before us just happened?
There are many hypothesis (note that I didn't say theories or facts) about the beginning of the universe. Are we not allowed to question these ideas that are put forth as facts that, unless we had a time machine, could never really be known?

**Wildtim** · 04-17-2008, 05:02 PM

Now that we have each thrown a rock, What is the origin myth you believe in?

**JMS** · 04-17-2008, 05:03 PM

Come on X, aren't you going to teach me a thing or two about posting video clips like you did in this thread?

**Wildtim** · 04-17-2008, 05:22 PM

Spinozas God Seems fairly impersonal, yet all encompasing, more interested in the process than the individual, exactly the perspective of a God who would set in to mothion a planet like ours where the fascinating process of evolution drive the advancment of creatures. But it is still a creation of a intelegence a being if you will.

To quote him: From On God

"God is the infinite, necessarily existing (that is, uncaused), unique substance of the universe. There is only one substance in the universe; it is God; and everything else that is, is in God.

Proposition 1: A substance is prior in nature to its affections.

Proposition 2: Two substances having different attributes have nothing in common with one another. (In other words, if two substances differ in nature, then they have nothing in common).

Proposition 3: If things have nothing in common with one another, one of them cannot be the cause of the other.

Proposition 4: Two or more distinct things are distinguished from one another, either by a difference in the attributes [i.e., the natures or essences] of the substances or by a difference in their affections [i.e., their accidental properties].

Proposition 5: In nature, there cannot be two or more substances of the same nature or attribute.

Proposition 6: One substance cannot be produced by another substance.

Proposition 7: It pertains to the nature of a substance to exist.

Proposition 8: Every substance is necessarily infinite.

Proposition 9: The more reality or being each thing has, the more attributes belong to it.

Proposition 10: Each attribute of a substance must be conceived through itself.

Proposition 11: God, or a substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists. (The proof of this proposition consists simply in the classic "ontological proof for God's existence". Spinoza writes that "if you deny this, conceive, if you can, that God does not exist. Therefore, by axiom 7 [‘If a thing can be conceived as not existing, its essence does not involve existence’], his essence does not involve existence. But this, by proposition 7, is absurd. Therefore, God necessarily exists, q.e.d.")

Proposition 12: No attribute of a substance can be truly conceived from which it follows that the substance can be divided.

Proposition 13: A substance which is absolutely infinite is indivisible.

Proposition 14: Except God, no substance can be or be conceived."

Those who accept this definition of God as Einstien did must assume that through God was the universe created. They could make no other supposition if they believe in God at all.

**xman** · 04-17-2008, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by JMS

Come on X, aren't you going to teach me a thing or two about posting video clips like you did in this thread?

1. Highlight and copy the text from the address bar of the YouTube page you wish to post the clip from.
2. Highlight the text in your SRP post which you wish to have hyperlinked.
3. Click on the "Insert Link" button and paste the address bar data in the small drop down window which appears.

*See example in this post below.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

And Richard Dawkins is?

Dawkins holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford, the highest seat of biology education in that country. That puts him close to Einstein. We could debate the relative merits of either, but we'd be spinning or wheels there. The Discovery Institute, of which Meyers is the Director, is a well known and discredited religiously fundamentalist organisation for the express purpose of promoting IDiocy in America's schools.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzheqmAJS6s

**Wildtim** · 04-17-2008, 05:34 PM

Discredited by whom exactly?

For someone often on the other side in conspiracy debates I would assume you see the similarities here.

Which court case there have been several? Most often they get decimated because politicians can't keep their religious statements out of the argument.

I definitely think there is room for opposing viewpoint of the origin of life as taught in schools. Especially since they now have to teach opposing viewpoints in sex ed so as not to offend the tiny minority of kids with two mommies. Why are people who entertain the notion of a Creator held in less esteem than those both the church and natural selection would deem unfit to reproduce.

**xman** · 04-17-2008, 05:43 PM

*sigh*

Sorry can't play any more. I have to entertain my son and make breakfast for my wife and both at the same tim. that's why they call me the xman.

I'd like to encourage you to do your own research, but rather than trying to prove your point to yourself, why not try the scientific approach of falsification. Try to disprove your ideas. If you make any headway, you should reconsider those ideas.

X

**Wildtim** · 04-17-2008, 06:09 PM

Have fun playing with the kid, good luck.

**billyjeff2** · 04-17-2008, 07:24 PM

"So you believe that everything we see before us just happened?
There are many hypothesis (note that I didn't say theories or facts) about the beginning of the universe. Are we not allowed to question these ideas that are put forth as facts that, unless we had a time machine, could never really be known?"

A lot of folks have a hard time with the concept of "the beginning", i.e. where did "what is" come from? Two answers: it is faulty logic to assume there was a time when "what is" never was. In other words, just as there is no end to infinity, there is no beginning. Everything "always was". Hard for the human mind to comprehend this, but to me it's more illogical to postulate there was a time when things "never where". There is no logical reason why the universe could not have always existed. Second answer: we will never, ever know. No one will ever know. It's impossible to know, so just live with that.
Now I know the response to all this--the "never was" idea is illogical. There must have been a beginning and if there is "something" as opposed to "nothing", someone must have created the "something". QED--the creator theory. Only problem is--to postulate the existence of a creator, who always existed and wasn't him/herself created, violates all of the same rules that folks claim are violated by postulating the existence of an infinite universe with no beginning.
In other words, if there is a creator who has always existed, why can't the universe have always existed?

Thread: Expelled!

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Posting Permissions