Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
But if you've ever been touched by the spirit, you know it's not that
simple. Faith is the opposite of blind trust. Faith IS blind trust, regardless of your other comments. You've never been touched by a spirit, though you may actually believe that. It's easy to see why religion kills so many. RB |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"Bobsprit" wrote in message ... But if you've ever been touched by the spirit, you know it's not that simple. Faith is the opposite of blind trust. Faith IS blind trust, regardless of your other comments. Rubbish!! How did the Universe come into existence? Faith is the only option that is available to the enquiring mind. If your small mind is capable of considering the origins of the Universe, then you will realise that there are only three options. 1) God created it. 2) It is endlessly expanding and contracting 3) It was created in a single event which resulted in equal amounts of "matter" and "anti-matter". Which option do you believe in? Let me guess! You are sooooo shallow that you don't subscribe to any of the above theories??? Regards Donal -- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
How did the Universe come into existence?
Absence of understanding does not invite fairy tales, or at least it shouldn't. RB |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Donal wrote:
How did the Universe come into existence? I have never heard any answer to that question that isn't predicated on assumption. Faith is the only option that is available to the enquiring mind. Agreed - faith that whatever assumptions one makes are true. If your small mind is capable of considering the origins of the Universe, then you will realise that there are only three options. 1) God created it. Not only does this presuppose that there was a god to do the creating, it begs the quesiton of how he came into existence. If one is to claim that he has always existed, then Occam's Razor would suggest that there is no need to invoke a creator that has always existed, when a universe that has always existed will do just as well. 2) It is endlessly expanding and contracting Maybe, maybe not. 3) It was created in a single event which resulted in equal amounts of "matter" and "anti-matter". Maybe, maybe not. Which option do you believe in? I'm not sure the question can be answered. By "answered", I mean in terms that are generally acceptable - self-evidently true or capable of being observed or experienced. Compare "the sun is warm" with "god made the universe". Let me guess! You are sooooo shallow that you don't subscribe to any of the above theories??? Tsk, tsk. -- Wally www.forthsailing.com www.wally.myby.co.uk |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Let me guess! You are sooooo shallow that you don't subscribe to any
of the above theories??? Tsk, tsk. Wally, I'm impressed. Quite a reasonable response, but faith does not allow reason. RB |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Wally wrote: Donal wrote: How did the Universe come into existence? I have never heard any answer to that question that isn't predicated on assumption. Faith is the only option that is available to the enquiring mind. Agreed - faith that whatever assumptions one makes are true. If your small mind is capable of considering the origins of the Universe, then you will realise that there are only three options. 1) God created it. Not only does this presuppose that there was a god to do the creating, it begs the quesiton of how he came into existence. If one is to claim that he has always existed, then Occam's Razor would suggest that there is no need to invoke a creator that has always existed, when a universe that has always existed will do just as well. If the universe contains everything then God is a self made man/woman/thing. A bit like the american dream really. Cheers |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"Wally" wrote in message ... I'm not sure the question can be answered. By "answered", I mean in terms that are generally acceptable - self-evidently true or capable of being observed or experienced. I believe that one of my three options is currently "in vogue" with the scienticic community. Furthermore, scientists will produce evidence, backed up by observation, to prove that their theory is correct. So I think that the question *can* be answered in terms that are generally acceptable. Regards Donal -- |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Donal wrote:
I believe that one of my three options is currently "in vogue" with the scienticic community. Is that the same as saying that those hypotheses that don't agree with the fashionable one have been falsified? Furthermore, scientists will produce evidence, backed up by observation, to prove that their theory is correct. Are there other scientists that will produce different evidence to prove that *their* theory is correct? So I think that the question *can* be answered in terms that are generally acceptable. You can tell someone that the sun is warm, and prove it by standing them in the sun to feel its warmth. If I tell somone that god made the universe, how do I show him or make him experience it? Ditto for a big bang or a cyclical thing that has always been. The universe is big. Really big. Honest, I'm not kidding. We're sitting here on our speck of molten iron, throwing radio stations into space, while we shoot around in something that is flabbergastingly huge. I'm a little skeptical of the notion that we've acquired enough data to go making proclamations of how it all began, or whether it did or didn't begin at all. -- Wally www.forthsailing.com www.wally.myby.co.uk |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Wally wrote: Donal wrote: I believe that one of my three options is currently "in vogue" with the scienticic community. Is that the same as saying that those hypotheses that don't agree with the fashionable one have been falsified? Furthermore, scientists will produce evidence, backed up by observation, to prove that their theory is correct. Are there other scientists that will produce different evidence to prove that *their* theory is correct? So I think that the question *can* be answered in terms that are generally acceptable. You can tell someone that the sun is warm, and prove it by standing them in the sun to feel its warmth. If I tell somone that god made the universe, how do I show him or make him experience it? Ditto for a big bang or a cyclical thing that has always been. The universe is big. Really big. Honest, I'm not kidding. We're sitting here on our speck of molten iron, throwing radio stations into space, while we shoot around in something that is flabbergastingly huge. I'm a little skeptical of the notion that we've acquired enough data to go making proclamations of how it all began, or whether it did or didn't begin at all. Well of course it doesn't exist. We all know that. Cheers |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"Wally" wrote in message ... Donal wrote: I believe that one of my three options is currently "in vogue" with the scienticic community. Is that the same as saying that those hypotheses that don't agree with the fashionable one have been falsified? No!! I was suggesting that the idea that the Universe appeared as the result of a spontaneous incident was generally accepted by the scientific community. Furthermore, scientists will produce evidence, backed up by observation, to prove that their theory is correct. Are there other scientists that will produce different evidence to prove that *their* theory is correct? Probably... but their voices are not heard. So I think that the question *can* be answered in terms that are generally acceptable. You can tell someone that the sun is warm, and prove it by standing them in the sun to feel its warmth. If I tell somone that god made the universe, how do I show him or make him experience it? Ditto for a big bang or a cyclical thing that has always been. The universe is big. Really big. Honest, I'm not kidding. We're sitting here on our speck of molten iron, throwing radio stations into space, while we shoot around in something that is flabbergastingly huge. I'm a little skeptical of the notion that we've acquired enough data to go making proclamations of how it all began, or whether it did or didn't begin at all. I don't disagree with you. Regards Donal -- |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
2004 Melbourne-King Island Yacht Race - Results and Race Report | General | |||
Formalities for Joint Ownership Yacht in Croatia | General | |||
Wanted, kayaking clubs | UK Paddle | |||
can we get him to post here? | ASA | |||
Abandoned yacht - Bobsprit's twin brother??? | ASA |