Book of Acts: Pure Fantasy

[brotherlylove]

Like I said before, this only shows that by changing the parameters, life AS WE KNOW IT, would not be possible. You have any evidence showing that no other form of life would not be possible either.

A change in many of those values would make life completely impossible, such as chemicals not being able to bond, no stars, no galaxies, no enough matter, etc. Whether there is some form of life that could potentially exist under some of these values is irrelevent, since we are talking about the sum of all of them..even if it were only a few of them, or even one of them, such as cosmological constant, you are still dealing with numbers bigger than the number of particles in the Universe. Neither do you have any evidence for any other sort of life; you just assume it is possible.

While we are on the subject, you have any evidence showing that those parameters are "tunable", i.e. it is possible for them to be something other than what they are?

I don't think it's possible for them to be any other value than what they are, because they were created to be as they are. I don't have enough to faith to believe in self-creating Universes. I am simply arguing against the paradign that you believe in, which is that nothing created everything. In the scientific paradigm, it is certainly possible that the Universe could have been much different, which is why they have theories of multiple Universes.

And the implicit premise in the formulation is that "there can be a t* prior to t". If there cannot be, then the formulations fails completely, causality stands inapplicable, the universe always exists and god doesn't.

There is nothing to rule out a timeless efficient cause. If isn't an argument.

So he's not eternal then? Being eternal means living for infinite time. If that attribute is simply superlative rather than qualitative, then god doesn't actually live for eternity, just a very long time.

Something eternal exists outside time.

Why would it need to be finite at any point to be potentially infinite?

Because it isn't actually infinite? Why do you think a potential infinite means? An actual infinite is completed, a potential infinite is series that is only potentially endless

For generally the infinite has this mode of existence: one thing is always being taken after another, and each thing that is taken is always finite, but always different.

—Aristotle, Physics, book 3, chapter 6.

You can always add one more, but in the adding it is a finite number of things you are dealing wtih.

Ergo, number of events from the past are infinite as well.

No, they're not..see above.

As usual, tiny humans arrogant in their own self-importance.

It's not arrogant to believe that the terms "morning and evening" in correlation to "the first day" refer to 24 hour days. You would have to work at misinterpreting it.

Why is it odd? The material things were written on are not eternal. They get old and crumble to dust like everything else. What matters is that the content was copied and stored into new mediums periodically.

Are they more fragile than soft tissue? How is it that blood cells can survive intact for "70 million years" but stone tablets couldn't last a few thousand years? Could it be that the sacred cow of deep time is flawed?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...issue.html

---

There is no such information in DNA, that's how we interpret what DNA is because the concept of alphabets etc are a convenient way of organizing a system which we would like to analyze. This is a case of a common use for a word not being an adequete description of it's use in a specific discipline of science..and tons of fallacious arguments are built atop the common use of the word "information". The "information in dna"...what information, specifically? Are you referring to "creation information"? If so, I can clear that up for you real quick. That's apologetics, not science. Obviously DNA is intriguing, but what does that have to do with god? Absolutely nothing.

If it isn't actually information I wonder why scientists call it information:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage...al-6493050

http://genomebiology.com/2001/2/6/RESEARCH/0019

Or why forensic DNA is an information science..

It's not convenient to say that DNA has an alphabet, grammar, semantics, etc..it is a digital code far superior to the best codes we have developed. It is not just a pattern like a snowflake.

A multiverse would require a level of fine tuning? Why, we don't see any levels of fine tuning in the this singular universe (the only one we have evidence for thusfar), so why assume that there would be any in some as yet unidentified multiverse? Garbage. No one has to rule god out BL, you have to bring something to the table to rule god in, which you haven't (don't take that personally, no one in the entire history of mankind has ever done this).

The idea of fine tuning did not originate with the intelligent design community. It is not even controversial to suggest that the Universe is fine tuned for life. It is only controversial to suggest that there was a fine tuner. Physicists Paul Davies said:

"There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life"

Alter DNA to make ourselves immortal? You mean....perpetual motion...free energy....in short..magic? I don't think it's anywhere near as likely as you seem to believe. We don't "just die"..we die for a reason (more accurately, reasons)...lol. Even if such a thing were possible, we're still referencing a creature which can be shown to exist aren't we (human beings), and that's the difference. What may be possible and what is are entirely different things. It may be possible for pigs to fly, but strangely, they don't.

There has been research to suggest that the reason we die is because it is in our programming, and this "feature" could be turned off. They speak of developing artificial intelligences that could assume the entire body of human knowledge instantaneously and copy it among themselves. There doesn't seem to be any reason we couldn't live forever, and it is in fact one of the major goals of science to come up with a solution for immortality. If we can become immortal, there is no reason an eternal being couldn't exist.

Are you seriously proposing here...that there was nothing before we invented the written word? That's going to last forever in my mind, the day that someone claimed that nothing existed before the letter A.......

No, I suggested that the reason the writings end at a certain point is because of the flood. There was a pre-flood civilization before the flood which was very advanced, certainly far more than the civilizations of antiquity.

Your experience. As in, your experience with god? Evidence? We live in no such creation, we are in no such state, nutball.

I'm still waiting on your evidence that there isn't a God, as you asserted in our earlier conversation.

---

Oh no the question of origins is quite unsettled in my mind. But of course I am expecting a natural accounting, just as I do for anything else science is working on. Since we have no reliable account of eternal omnipotent genies who can blink universes into existence, they can't be part of such an accounting until their own existence has been established.

It's settled to the point that you have ruled out any causes that don't have a naturalistic explanation. You assume everything will be explained in naturalistic terms when there is no reason at all to assume that. You are probably willing to believe anything that scientists tell you, to the point of believing nothing created everything, as some have suggested. It's hard to understand how anyone can hear that and realize the emperor has no clothes.

As I have pointed out earlier, there are plenty of good reasons to think the Universe does have an intelligent cause, but you don't want to engage with any of it. If it's unsettled, you would be more open minded. There is also general and special revelation. The heavens pour forth speech that there is a God; His eternal powerful and Godhead are evident in the things He has made, the the bible gives a specific account of His creation, through His Son Jesus Christ.

Now you're just not trying. You're suggesting that at some prior time a technological society may have perfected technology to the point where they could put death off for ever. That would hardly make them eternal, would it? Will they have also have mastered time travel so that they can go back 15 billion years and somehow set off the singularity that we think accounts for our universe? Neither do I see much hope that technology will ever catch up with the powers claimed for your genie. Silly suggestion.

I am not suggesting any of that. You said you couldn't believe in eternal beings, explaining that what we know of beings is that they don't live forever. I showed that it is possible that we could obtain immortality, and thus, according to your line of reasoning, eternal beings are possible.