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.

Pastimes : Neocon's Seminar Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: haqihana who wrote (362)	4/10/2001 5:04:29 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1112

The conceptual difficulties with the Big Bang Theory are at least as great as the mysteries traditionally surrounding God......

To: haqihana who wrote (362)	4/18/2001 7:55:23 PM
From: Mitch Blevins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1112

The line of reasoning that you are using negates your own position even more strongly than the opposition's... It would be foolish for an atheist (or any human being) to claim to explain or understand how something comes from nothing. If you continue to ask questions of most metaphysical systems, you will eventually force the apologist to admit this. Scientist: Man evolved from lower animals. Skeptic: Where did the lower animals come from? Scientist: They evolved from even simpler animals... even back to the one-celled animals. Skeptic: Where did the one-celled animals come from? Scientist:Evolved from self-replicating chemical compounds. Skeptic: Where did these come from? Scientist: They formed spontaneously after the earth cooled and was under the influence of the sun's cyclic energy. Skeptic: Where did the earth and sun come from? Scientist: Condensation of matter from energy after the big bang (for brevity's sake) Skeptic: Where did the stuff of the big bang come from? Scientist: I dunno... So the Scientist gets backed up against the wall, and cannot answer the ultimate question of how existence came into being in the first place. Additionally, the further back in time we go with these questions, the more likely the Scientist is likely to be wrong in his answers, as they rely on interpretation from observable phenomena. But at least his answers are answers. They explain things hierarchically in terms of simpler things. This is usually what we want when we ask for explanations... But a Deist is not satisfied. How can things like human beings, which obviously have intelligence, beauty, and purpose, come from naturalistic processes and simpler elements? But their explanation is just as unsatisfying... Deist: God made humans Skeptic: How did God come to existence? Deist: That does not need explaining. God just always was. Skeptic: Why do you think humans were made by God? Deist: Because they are very complex and show purpose, so that could not just be an accident. Skeptic: Isn't God complex? Doesn't he have a purpose? How could something so complex and full of purpose just always be? Is it an accident? Deist: That is different... So, haqi, I would ask you... How is that different?