"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God' ..." (Psalm 14:1)
The existence of God has been a topic of intense discussion for as long as there have been philosophers. Many books and dissertations have already been written about this issue. "Does God exist?,"
Most of us are not experts in philosophy or science, but most of us do have common sense and can reason things out in a pragmatic way.
[COLOR="Blue"]IN THE BEGINNING ...
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)
How did all things come to be? Was there a starting point or not? Either we had a beginning or we did not have a beginning. Atheism has always maintained that there was no beginning, that matter and energy has always existed (including the laws that govern them); and all that has happened is that matter has changed from one form to another, but it has always been. To the atheist matter is self-existing and not created. But is this a reasonable position to hold?
To determine whether or not the atheist's view is correct we can first examine what science has already discovered about this. It is a known fact that the universe is expanding. This is due to the movements of the galaxies. All of these galaxies are moving relative to each other. Their movements have a very distinct pattern which causes the distance between them to increase more and more with the passage of time. If we had three galaxies located in a triangular pattern and if they are located as stated, tomorrow they will be further apart. The triangle they form will be bigger. The day after tomorrow the triangle will be bigger yet. We live in an expanding universe that gets bigger and bigger and bigger with the passage of time.
So what does this mean? If you trace the movements of the galaxies back through time, the distances between them would decrease until they all met at a single, beginning point. This point scientists call a singularity. If the universe had a beginning, then the next question that follows would be, "Who began it?"
Another proof of the non-eternal nature of matter and energy is the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that all matter and energy tends toward maximum entropy. In any closed system, things tend to become disordered. For example, if a house is not maintained it will eventually decay and fall apart. Aging is simple conformity to the second law of thermodynamics. In space, things get old and die. Brilliant stars eventually dim, burn out, and become dark, cold, dead orbs drifting through the cosmos. Astronomers refer to this aging process as heat death. Scientists like the late Isaac Asimov predict that the universe will eventually reach the point of heat death, where all available energy will be expended and the order of all matter would cease. Even a universe that continually expanded and collapsed forever would die eventually because it would lose energy each time it expanded and contracted.
Ultimately, however, since all matter and energy tend irreversibly toward maximum disorder, and since it is not at maximum disorder today, it could not have been always tending that direction forever. Either the atheist would have to deny the second law of thermodynamics in order to maintain the idea of eternally existing matter and energy, or accept that matter and energy had a starting point. Therefore, the atheist's assertion that matter and energy has always existed is incorrect. The Biblical assertion that there was a beginning is correct.
CAUSE AND EFFECT
"For by Him [Jesus Christ] all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:16-17)
If matter and energy have a beginning, as was demonstrated in the previous section, then the next question is what began matter and energy. Matter and energy have no ordering principle within themselves. By themselves they would never have formed the complexities seen in galaxies, stars, our own world, or even our own bodies. If someone dropped a bag of marbles onto a smooth floor in a closed room, a room completely separated from any outside influence, the marbles would fall to the floor and scatter in a totally random pattern. They will not form a castle or some other organized object. Even if a billion years went by, the marbles in the closed room would not spontaneously become organized. They would remain in a state of maximum randomness unless an organizing agent imposed order on them. Likewise, all the matter and energy in the universe could not have become organized unless something else existed to organize them.
The law of causality states that for every effect there is a cause. The atheist's response to the idea of a Creator being the cause of all matter and energy is usually, "Why should the Creator not also be created?" But such a response betrays a lack of understanding of the law of causality. In any chain of cause and effect there has to be a first cause. If there is no real first cause, the chain would go on into infinity. If everything were an effect, there would be no explanation for anything.
There must be a reason for the existence of the universe, because at one time it did not exist, and later it did. If there is a reason for anything to exist, then there must be something that is uncaused or eternal.
The atheist maintains that matter is self-existing and not created. If matter had a beginning and yet was not created, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem. In order for matter to come out of nothing, one has to discard known laws and principles of science. No reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position.
As in the first section, the atheist's contention that the universe is uncaused and self-existing is incorrect. The Bible's assertion that there was a beginning which was caused not only makes rational sense, but is supported strongly by the available scientific evidence.
GRAND DESIGNER
"I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone." (Isaiah 44:24)
From the two previous sections we know that the creation had a beginning and that the beginning was caused. But this leads us to another question: "What was the cause?" We can know from the vast amount of matter and energy in the universe, and their complexity and order, that whatever caused it all had to be intelligent and more powerful than all the matter and energy in the universe combined. Throughout history philosophers and religious people have called this cause God. The Bible not only calls this cause God, but goes on further to say that it was God who did the causing, and did so with planning, reason and logic. Romans 1:20 tells us that we can know God is "through the things He has made." The atheist, on the other hand, will try to convince us that we are the product of chance.
The notion of creation by chance is another way of saying the universe created itself. For something to create itself it would have to exist in order to create. But then it would have to exist before it existed in order to create its own existence. For something to be self-created it would have to be and not be at the same time. This, of course, is contradictory and therefore irrational. If chance is not valid, we are constrained to realize that we are the product of an intelligent God.
"Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest." (Ephesians 2:3)
The atheist will often say he does not believe in the existence of God because of the presence of evil in the world. In other words, he will say something like, "If God really existed He would not have allowed the Hitler to murder 6 million Jews, or Stalin 40 million of his own people, or ethnic genocide in Bosnia and Rwanda, and on and on."
By pointing out the presence of evil in the world, the atheist makes a moral judgment. How can he do so? If there is no God, then nothing can truly be called evil or good. There would exist no absolute standard to judge such things as genocide, thievery, dishonesty, etc. Some atheists may say that they just know that some things are evil and some things good, or that the community as corporate entity determine moral standards. This, however, fails to provide a rational reason why there exist in people the ability to tell good from evil. To deny the existence of God, yet fail to adequately answer how people can make moral judgments, demonstrates the illogical foundation for the atheist's belief system.
It is impossible to tell the difference between good and evil in the absence of some reference point that is absolutely good. One cannot determine 3 inches from 4 without using a ruler as an absolute reference. One cannot determine actions to be good or evil without an absolute moral standard. The presence of evil actually demonstrates the existence of God rather than disproves it.
The next issue that the atheist will often bring up is why God, if he exists, doesn't just eradicate evil. The false assumption is that God's only choice is to deal with evil in one single act. If indeed God did deal with evil this way, every human being on earth would be eliminated. Why? Because human nature has the ability and inclination to do what is evil. While some people seem to be good by human standards, by an absolute stand of good they are not. So the atheist's desire for God, if He exists, to eliminate evil would produce results he would find unacceptable.
Fortunately, God is dealing with the problem of evil in a progressive way. A way that does not require the destruction of all human beings, yet will bring about the end of evil. The atheist will sometimes argue that if God truly did exist it would not take so long for Him to deal with evil. After all, God could have created human beings without the ability to do evil. Of course, this would have produced a race of robots. People programmed to act a certain pre-determined way. Again, this solution would produce results that the atheist would find unacceptable.
Atheism cannot produce a rational basis for determining what is good and what is evil. It cannot adequately account for the human ability to tell good from evil apart from the existence of God who is the standard of absolute good. And atheism cannot provide a solution to the problem of evil apart from God, or one that does not destroy human freedom or cause God not to violate His nature (e.g. absolute holiness, justice, mercy, etc.).
To summarize, atheism is inadequate as a rational worldview because it cannot adequately explain the existence of the universe. The majesty and order of the universe, and the wonder and complexities of life on earth, cries out for an explanation. The atheist, however, is unable to provide a consistent one. If he argues that matter is eternal, he is going against modern science which states that the universe had a beginning and is gradually running down. If the atheist affirms that the universe had a beginning, then he must account for what caused it. Either way, the atheist cannot adequately explain the universe and this world so full of complex forms of life.
The atheistic worldview is irrational and cannot provide an adequate basis for intelligible experience. An atheistic world is ultimately random, disorderly, transitory, and volatile. It is therefore incapable of providing the necessary preconditions to account for the laws of science and the universal laws of logic. In short, it cannot account for the meaningful realities people encounter in life.
Atheism as a worldview can furnish no rational basis for determining good and evil, or the human need for absolute moral standards. If there is no God who is by nature absolutely good, then there is no absolute standard for judging something to be good or evil. The atheist objects to the existence of God due to the presence of evil in the world, but can give no rationale on how he knows the difference between good and evil, much less provide a solution to the problem apart from God.
There is a god. How would they know? More importantly, how would they distinguish between "the" god and someone pretending to be god?
Quote:
Most of us are not experts in philosophy or science, but most of us do have common sense and can reason things out in a pragmatic way.
And yet, when we look at religion, we ignore all of the common sense and pragmatism we apply in every other aspect of our daily lives. We no longer demand "proof" or "evidence". We accept tautology as valid logic: "the bible says the bible is true"
Quote:
To the atheist matter is self-existing and not created. But is this a reasonable position to hold?
It is arguably more reasonable than the position that god is self-existing and not created. At least there is evidence that matter exists.
Quote:
To determine whether or not the atheist's view is correct we can first examine what science has already discovered about this. It is a known fact that the universe is expanding. This is due to the movements of the galaxies. All of these galaxies are moving relative to each other. Their movements have a very distinct pattern which causes the distance between them to increase more and more with the passage of time. If we had three galaxies located in a triangular pattern and if they are located as stated, tomorrow they will be further apart. The triangle they form will be bigger. The day after tomorrow the triangle will be bigger yet. We live in an expanding universe that gets bigger and bigger and bigger with the passage of time.
So what does this mean? If you trace the movements of the galaxies back through time, the distances between them would decrease until they all met at a single, beginning point. This point scientists call a singularity. If the universe had a beginning, then the next question that follows would be, "Who began it?"
The question is "Who"? I thought the question was "Why?". You've made an assumption from facts not in evidence.
Personally, I rather enjoyed The Last Question (Isaac Asimov), but just because it answers both "Who" and "Why", does not mean that it is anything but fiction. (It's very good fiction, I was quite inspired the first time I read it.)
Quote:
Ultimately, however, since all matter and energy tend irreversibly toward maximum disorder, and since it is not at maximum disorder today, it could not have been always tending that direction forever. Either the atheist would have to deny the second law of thermodynamics in order to maintain the idea of eternally existing matter and energy, or accept that matter and energy had a starting point.
Also "time". Time is NOT a linear concept, and time itself is a product of that singularity.
I have a difficult time even conceptualizing a reality without the concept of time. Suffice it to say, concepts like "always" and "forever" lose their traditional meanings when we remember this theory of time.
Quote:
Therefore, the atheist's assertion that matter and energy has always existed is incorrect. The Biblical assertion that there was a beginning is correct.
Even if you've demonstrated there was a beginning, you have not demonstrated that the bible is correct. The bible also asserts that murder is incorrect, but it is hardly the only thing that makes this assertation.
Quote:
CAUSE AND EFFECT
If matter and energy
and time itself
Quote:
have a beginning, as was demonstrated in the previous section, then the next question is what began matter and energy. Matter and energy have no ordering principle within themselves.
Gravity? Magnetism? Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces?
Quote:
By themselves they would never have formed the complexities seen in galaxies, stars, our own world, or even our own bodies. If someone dropped a bag of marbles onto a smooth floor in a closed room, a room completely separated from any outside influence, the marbles would fall to the floor and scatter in a totally random pattern. They will not form a castle or some other organized object. Even if a billion years went by, the marbles in the closed room would not spontaneously become organized. They would remain in a state of maximum randomness unless an organizing agent imposed order on them. Likewise, all the matter and energy in the universe could not have become organized unless something else existed to organize them.
Umm... Remove the "outside influences" such as earth's gravity from those marbles, remove the surface friction from where they sit, remove the air friction, and they will tend to approach eachother, albeit imperceptibly slowly, through their mutual gravitational attraction. Your thought experiment simultaneously tells us to remove these influences, and yet requires them.
Quote:
The law of causality states that for every effect there is a cause. The atheist's response to the idea of a Creator being the cause of all matter and energy is usually, "Why should the Creator not also be created?" But such a response betrays a lack of understanding of the law of causality. In any chain of cause and effect there has to be a first cause. If there is no real first cause, the chain would go on into infinity. If everything were an effect, there would be no explanation for anything.
And thus is demonstrated the causality PARADOX.
Gonna be snipping a lot in here - the original quote repeated a lot of these fallacies several times, and I'm not going to repeat the same counter arguments ad nauseum.
Quote:
From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent.
Where did "intelligence" come from? Why was that a requirement for the existence of matter?
Lots of assumptions, lots of strawmen, lots of faulty logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldruggedcrosser
The Big Atheist Dilemma --Cont.--
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
[The atheist will often say he does not believe in the existence of God because of the presence of evil in the world.
Some will. Personally, I ask whether mankind is as evil as it is made out to be. And I don't think it is.
Quote:
In other words, he will say something like, "If God really existed He would not have allowed the Hitler to murder 6 million Jews, or Stalin 40 million of his own people, or ethnic genocide in Bosnia and Rwanda, and on and on."
Not really. The atheist discounts the idea of a malevolent deity just as much as he discounts the idea of a benevolent deity. So, if he suggested the above - and this atheist doesn't - he would also suggest the same events as evidence of a malevolent god, and the existence of "good" as contrary evidence.
Quote:
It is impossible to tell the difference between good and evil in the absence of some reference point that is absolutely good.
"Pain" and "Pleasure" aren't sufficient reference points to define the primitive ideas of "good" and "evil"?
Quote:
One cannot determine 3 inches from 4 without using a ruler as an absolute reference.
Ever hear of the word "bigger"? There is no need for absolute measures where relative terms are sufficient. Furthermore, "inch" isn't an absolute concept, but a standardized concept used to compare the relative length of objects.
Quote:
One cannot determine actions to be good or evil without an absolute moral standard. The presence of evil actually demonstrates the existence of God rather than disproves it.
I think we've demonstrated to the contrary.
Quote:
Atheism cannot produce a rational basis for determining what is good and what is evil.
I just did. Derive away from those relative positions and eventually you get human morality.
Quote:
To summarize, atheism is inadequate as a rational worldview because it cannot adequately explain the existence of the universe.
One need not know how an engine operates to turn the key and drive the car off the lot. We DON'T need all the answers in order to exist. But, possessing such knowledge helps us appropriately address issues about reality. The bible, and many religions, are analogous to turning up the radio to solve the problem with an unknown noise from the engine.
Lot more strawmen, lot more logical gaps, lot more assumptions.
I, for one, am not convinced.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
[quote=rivalarrival;113454]There is a god. How would they know? More importantly, how would they distinguish between "the" god and someone pretending to be god?[ /QUOTE]
[QUOTE=
It is arguably more reasonable than the position that god is self-existing and not created. At least there is evidence that matter exists.
The question is "Who"? I thought the question was "Why?". You've made an assumption from facts not in evidence. [/quote]
Self existent?No the why answer doesn't get answered until the who answer.
[quote=
Even if you've demonstrated there was a beginning, you have not demonstrated that the bible is correct. The bible also asserts that murder is incorrect, but it is hardly the only thing that makes this assertation.
and time itself Gravity? Magnetism? Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces? Umm... Remove the "outside influences" such as earth's gravity from those marbles, remove the surface friction from where they sit, remove the air friction, and they will tend to approach eachother, albeit imperceptibly slowly, through their mutual gravitational attraction. Your thought experiment simultaneously tells us to remove these influences, and yet requires them. [QUOTE/]
I didn't mention anything about the correctness of the bible in that question. Where does the gravity and magnetism or nuclear forces come from? You haven't answered that one yet.
Where did "intelligence" come from? Why was that a requirement for the existence of matter?
That is a who question. God of course.
Your Quote:
Lots of assumptions, lots of strawmen, lots of faulty logic.
my answer: Yes your answers are full of them
Your Quote:
Lot more strawmen, lot more logical gaps, lot more assumptions. Quote. Yes I would say that about your answers.
Asking "Who" before any other question presumes the presence of a "who" without demonstrating that presence. Any answer to that question is logically invalid until the presence of a "who" is demonstrated. "Who" is most definitely NOT the first question asked.
The article you quoted stated that matter had no ordering principle. I stated several counterexamples.
The article went over several aspects of matter, then, without supplying argument or evidence, brought in "intelligence" as something essential for matter to exist. Didn't bother to explain why intelligence was needed, just said that it was.
So, would you care to support the assumptions made in the article, or shall we both admit that they are completely absurd?
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Those who refuse to accept Jesus remain condemned and destined for eternal death in hell. They would have to face judgment for their sins since the blood of Christ would not cover them. How can they be held responsible for their sins and face the judgment of God? John 3:19-20 explains it well. It says, "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed."
After one accepts Christ what does it mean to be saved? It means no longer being under the condemnation of God, and no longer being subject to His wrath (Romans 8:1). Those who accept Jesus Christ by faith receive eternal life (John 3:16, 36). Salvation is a gift wholly from God. Jonah 2:9 says, "Salvation is from the LORD". Salvation is granted by the grace of God through faith, apart from good works on our part.
"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)
Being saved means being brought from a lost condition by Christ (Colossians 1:13) into a saved condition that provides the believer with great blessings the moment we trust Him. These blessings are very comprehensive, for our "salvation includes every divine undertaking for the believer from his deliverance out of the lost estate to his final presentation in glory conformed to the image of Christ" (L.S. Chafer, Systematic Theology [Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948], 3:6). Paul declares that God has already blessed us with all spiritual blessings in Christ (Ephesians 1:3).
Asking "Who" before any other question presumes the presence of a "who" without demonstrating that presence. Any answer to that question is logically invalid until the presence of a "who" is demonstrated. "Who" is most definitely NOT the first question asked.
The article you quoted stated that matter had no ordering principle. I stated several counterexamples.
The article went over several aspects of matter, then, without supplying argument or evidence, brought in "intelligence" as something essential for matter to exist. Didn't bother to explain why intelligence was needed, just said that it was.
So, would you care to support the assumptions made in the article, or shall we both admit that they are completely absurd?
RA:
Your counter examples are invalid and you know it.
Bringing all the complexities that came into existence at the beginning had to be ordered by intelligence which requires a who.
No, I will never admit it, because the evidence is in my corner that this is not completely absurd.
Consider this for a moment. Let's say you have sailed across the Pacific Ocean and discovered an uncharted island. Upon landing on this island and exploring it you find it completely uninhabited. But you do find a city comprised of magnificent stone buildings stretching to the horizon in straight rows. What would be the first thing a rational person would think when considering the origins of those buildings? Yes, a reasonable person would wonder who designed and built the city. If even an atheist would likely think this way, why then is it so difficult to believe when looking at the majesty, wonder, and order of the cosmos that God, the First Cause, the Grand Designer, the Creator, does indeed exist?
The notion of creation by chance is another way of saying the universe created itself. For something to create itself it would have to exist in order to create. But then it would have to exist before it existed in order to create its own existence. For something to be self-created it would have to be and not be at the same time. This, of course, is contradictory and therefore irrational. If chance is not valid, we are constrained to reject Huxley's claim and to realize that we are the product of an intelligent God.
There must be a reason for the existence of the universe, because at one time it did not exist, and later it did. If there is a reason for anything to exist, then there must be something that is uncaused or eternal.
The atheist maintains that matter is self-existing and not created. If matter had a beginning and yet was not created, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem. In order for matter to come out of nothing, one has to discard known laws and principles of science. No reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position.
You Atheist's contend that the universe is uncaused and self-existing is incorrect. The Bible's assertion that there was a beginning which was caused not only makes rational sense, but is supported strongly by the available scientific evidence.
RA:
Your counter examples are invalid and you know it.
All of those forces are *not* examples of things that provide order to the universe? Seriously? All of those things are demonstrable forces at work within the very atoms, and you suggest that they just be dismissed in favor of a mysterious god?
Come on. At the very least, you need to phrase your understanding of existence with how god is responsible for creating those things that actually do provide order in the universe. You can't get away with the arcane language of genesis anymore.
Quote:
Bringing all the complexities that came into existence at the beginning had to be ordered by intelligence which requires a who.
No, I will never admit it, because the evidence is in my corner that this is not completely absurd.
Consider this for a moment. Let's say you have sailed across the Pacific Ocean and discovered an uncharted island. Upon landing on this island and exploring it you find it completely uninhabited. But you do find a city comprised of magnificent stone buildings stretching to the horizon in straight rows. What would be the first thing a rational person would think when considering the origins of those buildings? Yes, a reasonable person would wonder who designed and built the city. If even an atheist would likely think this way, why then is it so difficult to believe when looking at the majesty, wonder, and order of the cosmos that God, the First Cause, the Grand Designer, the Creator, does indeed exist?
I would go back and ask how you knew the difference between "uninhabited island" and "city". If you're saying both are created, how can you tell the difference between the two?
I *do* see the universe. I *don't* see any intelligence in its complexity. I see patterns, yes. The presence of a pattern doesn't imply intelligence.
I get the feeling that you think a world that came about "by chance" would have beaches in the middle of jungles, thunderstorms that rained pineapples, volcanoes that spit out sand, trees that dripped molten lava...
Quote:
The notion of creation by chance is another way of saying the universe created itself.
Why presume creation? Even your theory suggests that there was something that was never created.
Quote:
For something to create itself it would have to exist in order to create. But then it would have to exist before it existed in order to create its own existence. For something to be self-created it would have to be and not be at the same time. This, of course, is contradictory and therefore irrational. If chance is not valid, we are constrained to reject Huxley's claim and to realize that we are the product of an intelligent God.
Who wasn't created, but couldn't exist unless he was created... You're continuing to demonstrate causality paradoxes.
Quote:
There must be a reason for the existence of the universe, because at one time it did not exist, and later it did. If there is a reason for anything to exist, then there must be something that is uncaused or eternal.
And why can't the universe itself be considered eternal? Time itself was a product of the big bang. In a very real sense, the universe has existed "for all of time".
Quote:
The atheist maintains that matter is self-existing and not created. If matter had a beginning and yet was not created, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem. In order for matter to come out of nothing, one has to discard known laws and principles of science. No reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position.
You'd think I'd disagree, but I won't. Time itself is not a fixed construct. It is not linear. A clock at the top of a mountain and one at sea level record time at different rates. This is demonstrable fact. I'm no more qualified to fully explain the intricacies of relativity and non-linear time than Benjamin Franklin, Allesandro Volta, or Michael Faraday (some of the earliest pioneers of electricity) were qualified to explain vacuum tubes and semiconductors. Even though these concepts are taught at fairly elementary levels today.
Yes, we *do* have to disregard certain "known laws and principles of science" when we start operating above a planetary scale. We have to do this in the same way we disregard Newtonian Physics in favor of relativity in the understanding of orbital mechanics. We had to do this when we finally understood the earth was round instead of flat.
Even though there are many circumstances where "flat earth" theory is perfectly acceptable - we need not consider a round earth when we use a level in building a deck. We need not explain the physics of a catapult or a handgun with relativity; newtonian physics supplies a sufficiently accurate explanation. We can rely on a linear understanding of time so long as we're on or around the earth, and moving at velocities well below the speed of light. But when we get out to the big bang, linear time is simply an absurd concept.
Quote:
You Atheist's contend that the universe is uncaused and self-existing is incorrect. The Bible's assertion that there was a beginning which was caused not only makes rational sense, but is supported strongly by the available scientific evidence.
All I've heard from you is that some things need causes, some things need no causes, and it's entirely up to you to decide which ones are which. Thanks, but no. I'll stick with the path of trying to understand existence through reason and logic, instead of adopting whatever misguided theory someone wants to throw in front of me.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Bla Bla Bla Same old saw. Far to unintellectual for those of us with serious minds to waste our time on. I can't believe that you think you have any creds.
Linear Mode
