On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 08:48:50 -0700, lgb wrote:

In article ,
says...
So instead, you believe that, unlike true logical thought, in which, "ex
nihilo, nihil fit" -- "out of nothing, nothing comes" is a fundamental
premise of logical reasoning and scientific inquiry, you substitute "out of
nothing, everything came" in which, with no causative agent, the universe
just exploded into being at 3:00 one Thursday afternoon?

I find it strange that those who say something had to create the
universe then turn around and postulate a "supreme being" that according
to them, didn't need a creator. Seems like begging the question to me.
Or, as Terry Pratchett put it "it's turtles, all the way down."


What is begging the question is the problem inherent in attempting to
postulate the physical laws of a universe that shows itself not to be
eternal due to entropy and shows itself to have had a finite beginning.
The laws of logic that apply to that scientific inquiry. Yet, in order to
get that decaying, finite, universe, those laws of logic must be suspended
for the creation of that universe, i.e, in order for modern cosmology to be
correct, no cause nor causal agent was required for the initiation of the
universe. No origin for the kernel that blew up is identified, no reason
why something in stasis for eternity(-infinity) before the creation of the
universe suddenly became unstable and blew up despite being stable for t =
- infinity to 0. This is not logical, it violates the fundamental tenets
of logic and scientific principles.

One has to deal with the fact that the universe is not eternal (i.e. it
had a beginning and an end can be predicted based upon observable
phenomena). That doesn't leave a whole lot of logical choices.

No, the concept of eternity is not an easy concept to get one's head
around and our finite human minds are pretty much incapable of fully
grasping what that really means. However, there is much more consistency
to the postulate of an intelligent design than there is to an uncaused
explosion followed by random, chaotic events as the origin of our universe
and resulting cosmos.




And no, I'm not an atheist, if for no other reason than a negative
cannot be proved. For that matter, try understanding the terms
"infinity" or "nothing" - you and I can quote the definition, but our
brains are incapable of really grasping the reality. For example, our
brains may understand the idea of atoms, but tend to give a big "Yeah,
right" when told the toe they stubbed was mostly empty space :-).


Athiesm is a theological term that applies to one who denies the
existence of God or a Supreme being. It does not necessarily require that
the person confessing athiesm prove that concept.

Agnosticism is another theological term that applies to one who professes
that he cannot tell one way or the other whether God or a supreme being
exists.



I do assume, based on the number of different religions present and
past, that if there is a creator, or creators, that the odds are very
slim that anyone on earth understands his/her/it's/they're requirements
for salvation. Indeed, they can't even agree on the existence or nature
of life after death.

Most people base their religious beliefs on nothing more than the
culture they grew up in. Not exactly the act of a (supposedly)
intelligent species.

Given that there are adherents to various religions in all cultures,
there is evidence that many elements of various religions are a-cultural
although some religions are more prevalent in some cultures vs. others.
Basically, there are two religions, the first identifies that people have
to *do* something to earn their salvation. That approach is true in all
the world's religions save one. The requirements may differ among those
religions, varying from the various escetics of the eastern mystic
religions through the jihad-driven warriors of the Islamists, but they all
identify *actions* that must be performed in order to be proven worthy.
The only different religion is that of scriptural Christianity that
indicates that there is nothing that humans can do to earn salvation, they
can only appropriate that salvation by trusting that their savior has
fulfilled of the requirements for salvation for them and appropriating
that gift and promise of salvation as their own. All good works that
result are then an expression of gratitude for what has been done for them
rather than works that are required to exhibit worthiness for that gift.
One could add that prior to the incarnation, the other religion that
differed from the rest of the world's religions was orthodox judaism that
again, appropriated its salvation through trust in the promise of a coming
messiah.





+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+