EdGordonRN wrote:

Ahhh .... Errrr.... Which god are we talking about?


The word "God" can only mean one thing. There are many viewpoints God, but
by definition, there can only be one God. That's not religion; that's just
symantics.


Hahhahahahahhah Which book of facts did you read that in?

Cheers

Donal wrote:

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...

But if you've ever been touched by the spirit, you know it's not that
simple. Faith is the opposite of blind trust.

Faith IS blind trust, regardless of your other comments.


Rubbish!!

How did the Universe come into existence?

Faith is the only option that is available to the enquiring mind.

If your small mind is capable of considering the origins of the Universe,
then you will realise that there are only three options.

1) God created it.
2) It is endlessly expanding and contracting
3) It was created in a single event which resulted in equal amounts of
"matter" and "anti-matter".


Which option do you believe in?


None of the above. I'm partial to evidence for the idea that expansion
of the universe is accelerating.

Cheers

Wally wrote:

Donal wrote:


I believe that one of my three options is currently "in vogue" with
the scienticic community.


Is that the same as saying that those hypotheses that don't agree with the
fashionable one have been falsified?



Furthermore, scientists will produce
evidence, backed up by observation, to prove that their theory is
correct.


Are there other scientists that will produce different evidence to prove
that *their* theory is correct?



So I think that the question *can* be answered in terms
that are generally acceptable.


You can tell someone that the sun is warm, and prove it by standing them in
the sun to feel its warmth. If I tell somone that god made the universe, how
do I show him or make him experience it? Ditto for a big bang or a cyclical
thing that has always been.

The universe is big.

Really big.

Honest, I'm not kidding.

We're sitting here on our speck of molten iron, throwing radio stations into
space, while we shoot around in something that is flabbergastingly huge. I'm
a little skeptical of the notion that we've acquired enough data to go
making proclamations of how it all began, or whether it did or didn't begin
at all.


Well of course it doesn't exist. We all know that.

Cheers

Donal wrote:


Some
of my best friends are religious.


Uh oh! That sounds like "Some of my best friends are black"!!!!


Are you a racist?

Cheers

Bobsprit wrote:



Not correct. Einstein spoke of physics and energy, not abstract beliefs. You
score a 0 for attempting to assign values mathamatical levels.
If you truly want to use science here, then consider that thought is
electro-chemical in nature and being "right or wrong" both operate within the
same limits.
Doesn't say much for any god, now does it?


You'll be a materialist then.

Cheers

Joe wrote:




Whale vomit floats, used for years in the production of perfume. Whale **** sinks.



Some whale vomit sinks. Some whale **** floats. A bit like yours really.

Cheers

Bobsprit wrote:

Whale vomit floats, used for years in the production of perfume. Whale ****
sinks.

Whale **** floats and Ambergis is not vomit.


Do you mean ambergris?

Cheers

Agnostic - a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God)
is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to
believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god -open to
consideration, discussion and so on.

RB

But with the above definition, you make a divine joke of yourself. You are
permanently seeking the answer to a question you don't believe can ever be
answered. It's the futility of academics.

EdGordonRN wrote:
Agnostic - a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality
(as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not
committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of
God or a god -open to consideration, discussion and so on.

But with the above definition, you make a divine joke of yourself.
You are permanently seeking the answer to a question you don't
believe can ever be answered. It's the futility of academics.

The definition doesn't mention *seeking* an answer. There's a difference
between actively looking for something, and being willing to consider new
ideas or evidence.


--
Wally
www.forthsailing.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

But with the above definition, you make a divine joke of yourself.

A divine joke can't exist without god. So...no worries!

RB