Big Bang

Discussion in 'Quackenbush's' started by THEU, Sep 11, 2008.

  1. mop

    mop 2,500+ Posts


     
  2. mia1994

    mia1994 1,000+ Posts


     
  3. mop

    mop 2,500+ Posts

    GT....

     
  4. mop

    mop 2,500+ Posts

    mia, i am fine with statement 1 but statement 2 has the same problem that all of your statements on this have had. you have not shown it to be the case. you are merely asserting it.....
     
  5. mia1994

    mia1994 1,000+ Posts


     
  6. mia1994

    mia1994 1,000+ Posts


     
  7. mop

    mop 2,500+ Posts

    mia, you said:



     
  8. mia1994

    mia1994 1,000+ Posts


     
  9. mop

    mop 2,500+ Posts

    no....i don't. i think that is the fundamental point at which we disagree. i don't believe the outcome is "fixed" in the way you do, only that God happens to know what I will freely choose. it is not at all difficult for me to imagine such a scenario.
     
  10. mop

    mop 2,500+ Posts

    to quote myself from far earlier in this thread:



     
  11. mia1994

    mia1994 1,000+ Posts


     
  12. Coelacanth

    Coelacanth Guest


     
  13. mia1994

    mia1994 1,000+ Posts

    Coelacanth, you ignored most of what I had posted in my earlier thread, so I decided to simplify. The wordier we get the further we get from where the problem lies. But for the sake of meeting you halfway...

     
  14. Coelacanth

    Coelacanth Guest


     
  15. mia1994

    mia1994 1,000+ Posts

    The post that you did not answer completely (you just cherry picked), was on page 6 and started with: "Let's start at the bottom and work our way up." I don't need you to answer it now, as this thread could benefit from some brevity.


     
  16. mop

    mop 2,500+ Posts

    mia, if by "assured" you mean that they will happen....i am fine with that. but you and i have different ideas about why they are assured. i believe they are assured in the sense that God's knowledge about the future free will actions of free agents is correct, but no that they are "fixed" in the sense that he is the causal agent.
     
  17. mop

    mop 2,500+ Posts

    mia, i think your premises are false and limited by your understanding of the universe. i think there may be more simultaneity than we are comfortable with or aware of. in the sense that God knows the future choices of his free agent creatures simultaneous to there becoming "true." in other words, he doesn't cause them but he is aware of them nonetheless even though they are in the future.
     
  18. Coelacanth

    Coelacanth Guest


     
  19. GT WT

    GT WT 1,000+ Posts


     
  20. GT WT

    GT WT 1,000+ Posts

    I don't think that Coelacanth or MOP will ever be convinced that free will is logically incompatible with omniscience. A question for you both.

    Pretend for an instant that you were convinced of this logic. Would that have consequences for your faith?

    [​IMG]
     
  21. Coelacanth

    Coelacanth Guest


     
  22. Coelacanth

    Coelacanth Guest


     
  23. GT WT

    GT WT 1,000+ Posts


     
  24. Coelacanth

    Coelacanth Guest


     
  25. THEU

    THEU 2,500+ Posts

    well, lost my connection, let me try again.

    It seems that this thread has gone off on a philosophical tangent. I want to try to redirect.

    Here is the way I see/understand it.

    Before the Big Bang, all of the matter and engery that exists was contained in a tiny compact and dense space. If that was the case then what would have caused the Big Bang. There are only 2 options as I see it: Either something internally happened which caused an instability and the 'Bang' or an external force/agent/cause acted upon the matter/energy to cause the 'Bang.' So either what would have happened internally? Or what external factor would have acted upon all the matter and energy that exists?
     
  26. Coelacanth

    Coelacanth Guest


     
  27. GT WT

    GT WT 1,000+ Posts


     
  28. mia1994

    mia1994 1,000+ Posts


     
  29. mop

    mop 2,500+ Posts

    GT, you are so transparent in your anti-religious bias.....Coelecanth is showing great patience with both you and mia who refuse to engage his arguments. his arguments are quite sound and yet you keep reverting to poor argument fallacies. honest question: are you just not capable of defending your position? that is what it looks like. you know what you want to believe so you assert it over and over without any reference to logic or to premises that build to your conclusion. why not try to build premises towards a conclusion. my suspicion is that if you attempted an actual syllogism you would see how fallacious your argument is in the first place.

    by the way, why the reference to brickhorn? is he posting on these boards under a different name now?
     
  30. GT WT

    GT WT 1,000+ Posts

    It's not the believers I have a problem with MOP, it's the anti-science and anti-rationality that you represent that I take issue with. Believe in Christ's meassage of love for our neighbors and I applaud you. Believe in a 6,000 year old earth and I laugh at you. Try to teach my children that creationism/intelligent design is science and I oppose you.

    Oh, and I wasn't supposed to mention anything about Brickhorn. Please ignore that slip!

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page