GunnerJ

Isn't it amazing how these things go in circles?

ohwilleke, may I direct your attention to the Ur-EdThread, the Granddaddy of it all, my very own <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000005" target="_blank">First Cause Cannot Prove God</a>. I thought you'd like to farmiliarize yourself for what's to come, so we don't waste time going over previously covered ground with Ed's "arguments." Lawd knows Ed is too stupid/inconsiderate/poorly programmed to do the same.

Ed

No, the first statement refers to the Big Bang theory which most of the evidence points to being correct. Your second statement is incorrect. Remember in science you study the characteristics of the effect to determine the cause. Persons exist in this universe therefore it is rational to assume that the cause of the universe has a personal aspect to it and also the primary characteristic of the universe is that it is diversity within a unity, no other religion has a god with that characteristic except Christianity and the Triune God.

Jamie_L

Why?

Jamie

Daggah

Argh, why are you guys bothering with Block-HEad? You're wasting your time. The guy's brain is like rubber; your valid arguments bounce off of him, and he keeps on spewing his bull time and again. IT'S NOT WORTH IT!

Rusting Car Bumper

Starboy,
You are going exactly where I would have gone. The idea that there are "worldviews" is a problematic one.

Is the idea that people possess discernable, distinct, and solid worldviews a worldview?

DC

Ed

Hello Tommy. Never heard of Laws of Logic? You are the first person I have run into that never heard of laws of logic. Well, go to the library and check out an introductory book of philosophy and logic. Or read some Aristotle.

Ed

The evidence is the scriptures but that is not my point, my point is that such a being is a logical possibility. The universe had a beginning, that is a characteristic of an effect and therefore requires a cause.

Starboy

Hi Ed,

At last we debate. Thanks for responding to my post. You appear to jump to conclusions easily. The chair you sit on is also incapable of providing rational explanations, does that make it irrational? As I stated in my previous post I am an a-theist. I mean that in the sense of without theism. As such it is not a worldview but more like a description. I call myself an a-theist in the same way that I would call the sky blue. It is purely descriptive and makes no claims on its inner workings, directions or purpose. You appear to have a personal understanding of the word. Perhaps you could share it with me?

Of course science doesn’t tell me if I can cheat on my taxes. That is just plain silly Ed. It is the law of the land that informs me that I should not cheat on my taxes. It is those same laws that set out my rights and those of animals. I am surprised you do not know this. Look it up, you will find that laws are created by man for men. If animals want laws they can get together and make their own. Ed, you are scaring me, you appear to be completely unaware of the laws of the land. Ok, make a note of this, if you rape a woman you are breaking the law and if they catch you, you will be locked up. Your comment does make me wonder why you are fixated on raping women. Are you a sex offender? It wouldn't surprise me, the majority of sex offenders are Christians.

Starboy

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Ed

Yes, but we can go beyond that by utilizing its corollary, the Law of Sufficient Cause and determine the characteristics of the cause.

Quote:

Ed:This is what God is. stb: This is what some people claim that God is. It is also what some people claim the Big Bang is.

Maybe, but the Big Bang has all the characteristics of an effect so it logically requires a cause.

Quote:

ed: But most of the scientific evidence points to the universe being an effect and therefore requiring a cause. And the Christian God fits the characteristics for that cause. stb: ...Except, of course, that it doesn't. Just about every claim relating to God's world-creating activities in Genesis has been shown to be baloney. We live in a world that wasn't created in the "Christian" fashion and has characteristics incompatible with an omnimax creator (imperfection, evil etc). But I digress...

Fraid not, Genesis describes a definite beginning and this has been confirmed by the BB theory. Also, the six days of creation amazingly match the geological history of the earth as viewed from the perspective of an earthbound observer if the days represent the initial day of creative epochs.

[b] Fraid so, see above.

Starboy

Mr. Ed,

Horse got your tongue? Or are you afraid to debate? What gives?

Starboy