RELIGION Re: Enhancing health with time on your side

[Guest guest]

> > >

> > > > >None of the groups had biblical belief. How can

> > > > their

> > > > >truth ring true then?

> > > > >Wanita

> > >

> > > > There are things besides the Bible that resonate

> > > > with God's truth.

> > > > Romans 1:20 says " For since the creation of the

> > > > world God's

> > > > invisible qualities- his eternal power and divine

> > > > nature- have been

> > > > clearly seen, being understood from what has been

> > > > made, so that men

> > > > are without excuse. "

> > >

> > > You're not the first to interpret and liken reverence

> > > to nature's power, free of entity, to an entity.

> > >

> > > Wanita

> > >

> >

> > I attribute the creation of nature itself to an entity- this is

very

> > different. Examination of the nature of nature if you will

points

> > strongly in the direction of a Creator.

>

> Well, if you want to take the position that if you don't

understand something, it must be attributable to a supernatural

force...

That is not my position. What I *do* understand that is that

something cannot come from nothing any way you slice it. I don't

believe any human by means of any science can or ever will be able

to explain the origin of the universe unless a supernatural cause is

entertained.

>

> > For example, the consensus

> > of the cosmology community is that the universe had a beginning.

If

> > you follow the logic that what begins to exist has a cause and

the

> > universe had a beginning, it must follow that the universe has a

> > cause.

>

> No, it doesn't follow. First - and this is not easy to do - entire

philosphical works have been based on this - you have to precisely

define what a cause is. You're just throwing around terms.

First, I am highly skeptical of anything touted as so complex that

it can't be explained sufficiently for an " average " educated person

to grasp in at least in a rudimentary way. And I don't believe one

has to be an expert in everything to be discerning and draw educated

conclusions. Perhaps if all my eggs were in this particular

theoretical basket, I would research it on my own more thoroughly.

Besides, no matter how sophisticated one's understanding of

cause/effect is, I still don't see how it might explain how the

first particle or whatever came to be. I guess I'm just " throwing

around " the average person's working knowledge of cause/effect- i.e.

in the sense that I built the snowman in my front yard and therefore

caused it to exist, and that it could not have just appeared there

on its own.

>

> Second - while we might say that events (at least macrocosmic

ones) in the universe have causes, the notion of cause and effect as

we understand it presupposes time as we understand it (which we

really don't...). We don't understand what it MEANS for the universe

to come into existence, and to glibly then apply terms like

cause/effect to the universe coming into being assumes the same

notion of causality existed 'before' the universe began.

Interesting point.

>

> > The Cambrian Explosion, which describes the sudden

> > (geologically speaking) appearance of the majority of animal

phyla

> > in the fossil record also points to a creative force rather than

> > random mutation and variation.

>

> this is all crap. You are stating this as fact. It is religion and

nothing else. No logic involved either.

I'm sure you won't like this any better but if in fact the fossil

record shows a more spontaneous (vs Darwinian/gradual) appearance of

animal life, wouldn't the presence of intelligence in the process

have to be entertained as a hypothesis?

>

> >Another example would be the complex

> > information contained in DNA and involved in the working of the

> > cell. One assumes intelligence is behind even the simplest

> > collection of information, how could it not be in DNA which is

far

> > more complex than the most advanced computer? It's akin to the

old

> > example of the astronomical odds against all the parts of a 747

> > coming together in a tornado to make an operational jet

airplane.

>

> If you'd like to believe in intelligent design, more power to you.

Just don't teach it as science, and don't expect to post it here as

fact and not get called on it.

>

Consider me called. I can see why if one's bias precludes him from

even entertaining the existence of the supernatural, he would

naturally reject any theories pertaining to an intelligent designer.

I welcome your response but can't reply- I am feeling the need to

return to my usual non-confrontational cyber existence LOL.

Sincerely,