Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

Neither does "a Creator created it".

[Orange Wizard]

Well, that does explain it, technically. It doesn't explain why the Creator is there, though, so I'd say they're about equal in that regard.

[Orange Wizard]

Why does it have to be cyclical?

[Sheb]

I think he means that any "explanation" is just going to lead to "but what created the thing that created the universe", "What created the thing that created the thing that created the universe", etc etc.

I don't think it's entirely true, you can have theories that don't require a creation, because something was always there (like the big crunch hypothesis), or because time does some really strange things at the beginning of the universe.

[Frumple]

Time-stuff, yeah. Stable time travel loops are a normal thing in fiction, anyway. The universe started because someone in the future went back in time and started it

Good as answer as any, I suppose. Also means we (or at least some other intelligent species, I guess) will eventually be able to claim credit for it the start, anyway, which is something.

You thought it was YWHW, but it was ME, DIO! Along those lines. That would be a good line. Note to self: Legislate that all time travelers must legally change their name to Dio.

[Arx]

That's an incredibly impenetrable wall of text. Please space it out a bit?

[Descan]

It is impossible to make similar studies on the existence of a divine power without either side being able to handwave them.

2 things: Null Hypothesis, and disproving the Christian god. I.E. A being who created the world, answers prayers, came to earth as a divine human and sacrificed himself to himself to allay himself over humans sinfulness, and requires you to believe in his human-self in order to be saved from him and his wrath...

Erm...

Anyway, my point is, it's easy (relatively) to disprove a specific God (Thor, YHWH, Zeus, Tenger Etseg, etc) which makes active claims about the world and how it works, but not so easy to disprove a silent, non-interfering deistic god. But at that point, what's even the point of him? He's something that doesn't affect the world but still needs to be explained where he came from, it's just easier to toss the hypothesis out when there's no evidence that it's true.

Also, I know, I know. You say my name and went "There goes the neighbourhood." Still, I'm *trying* to tone down my venom. I'm sure there's... somethin' or other in here, that I missed. As I said before, give me the benefit of the doubt, eh?

[MonkeyHead]

PTF, and point out the errors in physics made by those who might not have a brilliant understanding of the things they use in their arguments, if the last few pages are anything to go by.

[redwallzyl]

lets revive this with a nice podcast episode on the topic of the church. sense the other thread is locked this is now the only one left. try not to get it locked.

http://historyofengland.typepad.com/blog/2014/12/141a-an-alternative-view-of-heresy-by-david-ford.html

[Propman]

Was overseas when this thread started up, but posting now to watch out of curiosity. Though I might not be as strong a Catholic as my mother would have liked, I am quite glad at the amends made with the Orthodoxy.

[TheKaspa]

PTW