Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (9346)	3/22/2001 10:50:05 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"define the universe as eternal and cut out the designer" How handy. Except for the small problem posed by the expanding universe. The universe, seems to have abruptly come into existence at a particular point in time. Every thing that begins to exist in time, must have a cause. If God is eternal, then His existence is outside of time and therefore does not require a beginning. That's why His name is "I Am That I Am"(Exodus 3:14), the self existent, eternal God. Just defining things in a way that makes you feel better doesn't change anything. Your definitions must also correspond to reality, or they are not valid. Greg

To: epicure who wrote (9346)	3/22/2001 11:37:11 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"No, you are putting in an unnecessary step." Far from it. I can't help it that you have a limited view. I have heard physicists proclaim eternity within a single atom. Your view of physical limitations (ie boundaries of the universe or time) having anything to do with eternity, is simply faulty. The idea of an eternity (no beginning or end) includes no limitations. Saying you can't include a designer is applying a limitation. Extra step, cheeaaah right.

To: epicure who wrote (9346)	3/22/2001 12:23:10 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

OK now I'll have to look back at your statement. "No, you are putting in an unnecessary step. If you are going to "define" something as eternal- define the universe as eternal and cut out the designer. It makes no sense to define away the problem AND add the extra step." In the first place, I see no evidence that the "universe" is eternal. You said cut the designer out. If that doesn't mean the designer can't be included, well, I think your spinning girl. However, the issue is unresolvable under your scenario but resolvable under mine.