Unanswered questions

[Drich]

But, I did ask an origins question.

Indeed you did. My point was if you truly understood the nature of what you were asking you would not have asked an orgins question.

You said that my comprehension was only limited by the questions I can think to ask.

Indeed.

You said that as long as I can ask the question, the answer would not be beyond my ability to comprehend.

No, I said you have the potential to be given an answer. Meaning you can get an answer but whether you accept it or not or even understand it or not is completely on you.

Let's see if you give me an answer that is beyond my human ability to comprehend...

Don't take this as an insult. But non comperhension can manifest itself as a pride. Meaning one is most likly to mock and dismiss what he/she does not completely understand. Now take that fact and pair it against your work and even the work of your peers against my own. Where do you see the greatest amount of mockery? And where do you see a line by line disection of the arguements levied against points that are made?

Unfortunately, I am a being whose comprehension of time is limited to my knowledge of it being linear.

Indeed, as are we all.

So, to posit an infinity is beyond my realm of comprehension.

Then break it down to it's simplest componets.
What it time? The measure of moments that seperate events.
The you ask How time is measured. At it'c core all time is based off of the earth's rotation around the sun.

Next can you imagine a point before the orgins of the creation/or what ever the current p/c term is that describes the beginning of the cosmos?

If yes then that span before there was anything was infinity past. because without anything to mark the passage of time, "Time" (The measure of moments that seperate events) can not exist, as we currently define it. take it in the other direction and you have infinity future. That is why the universal symbol of infinity is a sideway #8. It's not the the sideways #8 itself, as the #8 actually repersents time itself, but the perspective that allows you to see the complete passage of time.

being bound to linear time means we are on or occupy some part or portion of the figure 8, and can not see time (past present and future) in it's entirity. Being able to See the whole of time places out of the course of the figure 8 and far enough back to understand what he/she is looking at.

It is nothing more than conjecture to do so.

I disagree, for in the creation account and in other account there was a 'time' that the universe did not exist. And in both accounts there will be a 'time' where everything ceases to exist as we currently know it. outside these two goal posts is infinity.

I have no basis for an infinity, nor do I know what preceeded the big bang, so I am not able to make any claims of the sort. You, have done exactly that. When I ask how you know it to be true, your answer is that you inferred it from your interpretation of biblical texts.

If you truly seek a 'scientific understand' your 'objection' should actually be a question. "Why?" Why do you use the bible to support your arguement.

You ambiguously offer a scientific understanding of time to justify it, however, should I raise a scientific objection to causation, you are reduced to shrugging your shoulders, and telling me...what exactly? That God's ability is beyond my comrehension?

No. If this is your version of my "why question" I use the bible as my source because I am speaking of the God of the bible. If I speak of the God of the bible then I am bound by the bible to repersent The God it describes. May I suggest your next question be "How do you know the bible to be true."

I'm a/s/king you a question, and you're unable to give a good answer.

actually i gave a very Good answer. Just not the yes or no answer you were looking for.

Look at it again. God has no orgins, because He existed before everything orginated. Let's say the big bang/Creation was the beginning of everything period. The bible says God existed before that point in which time began. If God existed before that point in time where time began that would mean He did not have an orgin or beginning. Because again no 'beginning could have happened before anything was created.'

Because a beginning requires a starting point, and in both orgins account there was a point in time that everything sprang fourth. God was before that point in 'time.' which means He is not on the sideway figure 8, He is able to observe it.

If you refer to science and in our understanding of time to defend your God, then I assume you will also have no problem with the 3 part chain of causation that your claims of God have left a blank spot in.

An Efficient Cause- Who made it? You say god.

A Material Cause- (blank)

A Formal Cause- The universe

Just because you perceive this world to be tangiable/physical, does it mean that it is?

Have you read my 'matrix' thread? In short I argue that this reality is no more real than the matrix, but because this is all we know it is real to us. and also that is why everything taste like chicken.

Every form of causation requires all 3 of the above parts in order to effectively bring something else into existance. Explain.

What if we lived in a glactic computer program, as per the rules of the matrix? "Material Cause" would not apply because material causation would be only apply to tangable object found with in the confines of this world, this demension. Because material cause or make up, is a requirement of objects bound to the realm that Physics governs.

Where there is an actual 'matrix 'or whether God is simply a transdemsional being, the fact that His realm His world/Living space is not linked to ours means by defination He is is not bound to our understandings of causality.

If you believe that only God preceeded the universe, and you are not a proponent of Ex Deo, then from what did God create the universe from

This is an easy one.
But first I'd ask what does science say the universe is made from? Then I'd say 'that.'

I do not believe science and God are apposing forces where it has to be one or the other. I believe science is the system of observation we have developed 9initially) to explain how God did things. The only problem is the prophets of Science (scientists) and the Prophets of the Chruch, did not like sharing respect and did not want to yeild to one another. So left unchecked the two opposing forces were pitted against one another.

As my evolution thread explains there is nothing in either account of orgins that says it must be either or. I say both. For even if Creation happened in a literal 7 days from a garden perspective, God would have still accomplished all of it somehow.

---

Drich, I would very much like you to answer my question and prove to me that the bible doesn't contradict itself. i would like to see you try to respond to that. please don't cherry pick what you do and don't want to answer. If you do that, then i know that i am onto something.

Give me 5 examples of biblical contradiction. (Your best 5) Let us start there.