From Catholic Answers:
-
graham-167 — 9 years ago(November 27, 2016 05:59 AM)
Graham, this question has been asked time and time again. The buck has to stop somewhere.
Then let's stop it with "nature" and not "god", since we have evidence of the existence of the former and not the latter.
Believers of the Abrahamic faith only accept a GOD that has forever existed.
Then I ask again : if you accept that it is possible for something to forever exist, then why not simplify a little and assume that it is nature that has forever existed? What is the need to invoke god at all?
The natural world imo is a created entity.
But is your opinion based on anything? Do you have any reason to believe that the natural world is a created thing?
And why is your opinion that the natural world is a created thing any better than my opinion that if there is a god he too must have been created by something else. I will call it "supergod".
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god. -
raif-1 — 9 years ago(November 27, 2016 07:12 AM)
And why is your opinion that the natural world is a created thing any better than my opinion that if there is a god he too must have been created by something else. I will call it "supergod".
Are you suggesting that we and the universe might be created by a deity and that deity is in turn created by a supergod? As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter if that is the case (which is highly unlikely) but if it is, the deity is then not god but the supergod is GOD. It is the reason why I have always capitalize GOD so that we might not be confused on which god we are speaking of which is the one true GOD. -
marty-130-840283 — 9 years ago(November 27, 2016 03:48 AM)
where did the "natural world" come from?
I don't know. Why do you presume it had to come from somewhere?
Everyone knows it came from somewhere. (the big bang) ie. the universe has not always existed, it had a beginning.
God did it
Where did god come from? Whatever your answer is, if that answer is acceptable then why can't you just save a step and apply it to the natural world?
God is eternal and self existant, with no beginning, and no end, thats why hes called God.
I cant apply that step, to the natural world, because things just dont create themselves magically, like DNA, human beings, the earth etc. -
graham-167 — 9 years ago(November 27, 2016 06:06 AM)
Everyone knows it came from somewhere. (the big bang) ie. the universe has not always existed, it had a beginning.
Actually there are several things wrong with that statement.
For one, the big bang theory describes conditions of the very early universe. It does not - and cannot - describe the conditions of the actual origin point itself.
For another, "the universe" is potentially a small subset of "the natural world". It is entirely possible that there were other universes before this one, are other universes prior to this one. In short, that our universe is only one small part of "nature", and the big bang but one of many big bangs which have happened and continue to happen. See for example the "brane cosmology" hypothesis.
God is eternal and self existant, with no beginning, and no end, thats why hes called God.
Nature is eternal and self existent, with no beginning, and no end, thats why its called nature.
See? Anybody can do that. And what I said is more plausible than what you said, since we both assumed that something can be eternal, we both assumed something can be self existent, with no beginning, and no end - but you assumed the existence of a deity, whereas I know nature actually does exist.
I cant apply that step, to the natural world, because things just dont create themselves magically, like DNA, human beings, the earth etc.
Not magically, no, but we know the natural processes which create those things.
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god. -
Rumble_McSkirmish — 9 years ago(November 27, 2016 07:46 AM)
Not magically, no, but we know the natural processes which create those things.
Which we also have a fairly large record of, from what exists today to what went extinct over the millions of years the world has existed.
I mean it's really easy to shoot this thing in the head and kill it. According to the bible timeline earth took 6000 years from beginning to this point. I'll even give it a error margin of a few million yearsor a billion if you like.
Uranium-238 has a 4.5 billion year half life after which it decays through 13 other elements, of which we also have. some others decay within minutes, while others take thousands of years and everything in between. There is no way the biblical stories come anywhere close to an actual timeline of existence based on the simple example of radioactive decay which is a constant.
Panzer vor! -
graham-167 — 9 years ago(November 27, 2016 09:13 AM)
The standard response to this is that maybe Uranium decayed faster in the past.
What creationists don't generally get is that Uranium would need to have decayed at
least
million times faster to account for the difference. And radioactive decay releases energy. If it decayed a million times faster, the Uranium would release energy a million times faster.
And that would mean the Earth of the past would be composed of a horribly radioactive cloud of superheated material. Nothing could live in such an environment, not even the hardiest of bacteria.
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god. -
Rumble_McSkirmish — 9 years ago(November 27, 2016 10:03 AM)
That's the reason the uranium in the earth doesn't kill us. The longer the half life, the less radiation.
Hell, Bismuth is radioactive, but on such a small scale it's considered stable. It has a half life of a billion times more than the estimated age of the universe. Compare that to stuff like polonium with a half life of 130 days. It releases so much energy it glows blue because the radiation effects the air around it. It has so much radiation a half gram sample can reach 500 degrees Celsius and give you a fatal dose within a second. and there's still others with half lives of a few moments which are just intensely, insanely radioactive. It's amazing how radiation works
Panzer vor! -
uther8 — 9 years ago(November 27, 2016 10:39 AM)
I cant apply that step, to the natural world, because things just dont create themselves magically, like DNA, human beings, the earth etc.
I love the way these hypocrites denounce DNA and evolution as magic, when their very core belief is totally dependant on magic.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free - Goethe -
raif-1 — 9 years ago(November 27, 2016 02:32 PM)
I love the way these hypocrites denounce DNA and evolution as magic, when their very core belief is totally dependant on magic.
Don't be too hard Uther. This is what one would call it as faith or going with gut feeling. Imho, there is rational thinking about accepting what is natural and what is supernatural -
uther8 — 9 years ago(November 27, 2016 10:55 PM)
This is what one would call it as faith or going with gut feeling.
The point is the hypocrisy slamming the supernatural or magic when it suits and wholeheartedly accepting it as a core belief.
The supernatural or 'magic' is mocked when applied to natural observances such as evolution, the big bang, DNA etc, but totally accepted when a superntural being uses magic to create life.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free - Goethe -
mamu2 — 9 years ago(November 28, 2016 06:07 AM)
things just dont create themselves magically
Yet that is what you believe, no? That a supernatural being created everything magically by simply poofing it into existence fully formed? How again would that be considered "natural"? -
Navaros — 9 years ago(November 27, 2016 02:37 PM)
Where did god come from?
Nowhere.
That question itself is loaded with a false premise.
God always was. He did not "come." He was just there, always.
why can't you just save a step and apply it to the natural world?
Even your fellow darwinists don't believe in a similar explanation for the natural world. You darwinists think that it started at a specific point in time with "the big bang," for example.
So good job asking a question that assumes a premise to be true which your own darwinist ilk rejects! LOL
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman -
Rumble_McSkirmish — 9 years ago(November 27, 2016 03:03 PM)
Nowhere.
That question itself is loaded with a false premise.
God always was. He did not "come." He was just there, always.
How so? If everything must have a beginning, why does this not apply to god?
i suggest you learn what terms mean before you use them, too.
Nowhere.
That question itself is loaded with a false premise.
God always was. He did not "come." He was just there, always.
The beginning of the current universe we know of, yes. I don't know if you're playing stupid with this, which is rather dishonest, or if you really don't know what it is you rail against
So good job asking a question that assumes a premise to be true which your own darwinist ilk rejects! LOL
"I am so so clever because i used some big boy words LOL" = Nav
Panzer vor! -
Navaros — 9 years ago(November 27, 2016 03:51 PM)
Then you've destroyed the First Cause argument.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that. I am destroying the pro-apostasy argument quoted in the OP. However, I am not necessarily destroying the idea that God is the First Cause (that idea is valid if & when it is not framed in ungodly/pro-darwinist terms, as the author quoted in the OP does).
The universe came from nowhere.
But you are the only darwinist in the universe who is asserting that.
Every other darwinist believes that that universe came from "the big bang" and that it happened at a specific point in time.
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman -
graham-167 — 9 years ago(November 28, 2016 02:26 AM)
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that.
What a shocker.
However, I am not necessarily destroying the idea that God is the First Cause
Yep, you did.
But you are the only darwinist in the universe who is asserting that.
So what?
Every other darwinist believes that that universe came from "the big bang" and that it happened at a specific point in time.
So you don't know what Big Bang theory is either. Another shocker!
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god. -
Navaros — 9 years ago(November 28, 2016 08:33 AM)
So what?
So don't you feel strange to be rebuking your own ilk of fellow darwinists?
And if you are admitting darwinists are full of crap about the big bang/start of the universe, then how much more are they
also
full of crap about?
So you don't know what Big Bang theory is either.
I know that it debunks the fairy tale you are promoting in this thread, which is a fairy tale that opposes the big bang fairy tale.
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman -
graham-167 — 9 years ago(December 06, 2016 04:02 PM)
So don't you feel strange to be rebuking your own ilk of fellow darwinists?
Not in the slightest. Unlike you, I don't take the view of "My side right or wrong, even if it means openly supporting lies and liars." I support truth, regardless.
I know that it debunks the fairy tale you are promoting in this thread
Any statement you make that begins with the words "I know that" is pretty much guaranteed to be wrong.
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god. -
Winter_King — 9 years ago(November 28, 2016 01:45 AM)
where did the "natural world" come from?
magic?
the natural world, just, decided 1 day, to create itself?
No.
God did it
This is the God of the Gaps the OP has mentioned. Also known as the argument from ignorance.
You don't know something, so you invent something.
I don't know where the natural world came from but that doesn't mean it was god.
Wouldst thou like the taste of butter? A pretty dress? Wouldst thou like to live deliciously? -
Navaros — 9 years ago(November 28, 2016 08:29 AM)
I don't know where the natural world came from but that doesn't mean it was god.
Even if "that doesn't mean it was God," it still was God. So God wins either way.
By the way, did you know that Black Philip is another name for Satan, and Satan devolved from Lucifer, and Lucifer was created by God?
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman