Kimi's Potty Mouth

[Schumikonen 2]

I cannot prove the existence of God, at least not in any tangible way so as to eliminate doubt; for that is what would be required. As Cav has stated, science is shining a light on the unknown a little more every day. In that new light, yet one more reason to not believe in the divine is found. When we know everything about the physical universe, will we not need a God anymore? Or will we discover that we need our divine beliefs even more? We may just discover that knowing every molecule of the football field still doesn't answer the question of who built it.

I can tell you about this that every answer that scientists find, add more questions so the more we know, the more unanswered questions we got, so we will never be able to understand everything it's just impossible. Take a look at scientists trying to explain the universe when they don't even explain what happend in the earth, there are a lot of unknown creature in the sea, we don't understand Tsunamis, earthquake, hurricanes, tornados and we are trying to explain the universe or God. God is so big that can never be explain this is just like trying to put the whole water of the sea into a cup and that is part of being God too.

[Max Mosley 2]

Good rebuttal, Murray. Looking at it objectively, it's possible dehydration or some other physical ailment happened to make him believe he had a divine experience, but that doesn't explain the many other 'interventions' that supposedly happened to Paul. However, any such items I could bring up would then be open for debate, and doubt. It's in that area of doubt that you can maintain your unbelief in religion. Strangely enough, it's in the realm of the unknown that I can maintain my belief in religion.

[...]

(btw, most scholars agree, for what it's worth, that Luke wrote Acts by a series of 'interviews' a great deal after most of the other New Testament books were written. You can test this by looking at the number of times medical terminology is used in Acts, specifically the description of Judas' hanging, and remember that Luke was a medical doctor.)

Good points Mike. I just think that there are so many claims of supernatural or alien or "monstrous" intervention in the world and in history that they can't all be true and so its best to be very doubtful of testimony of any such events.

Just to give you something to think, could you tell me how many HP will be needed to stop and change the movement of the whole universe?

I think all this physics is missing the point - and I'm a student of physics. First, how does postulating a God explain how the universe was created out of nothing? It doesn't - except only in ways that an atheist can use equally well. No doubt God did it in a way "beyond all human understanding"? Yes, well perhaps Nature did it in a way "beyond all human understanding". God is not needed in this context, or at least He doesn't help us.

Oh regarding your questions, no external force is required in the Big Bang because total momentum is conserved, as far as I know anyway. The energy required is enormous, but thats fine as there's lots of energy in the universe now - think of how many stars there are, then consider that we can't see any but a tiny fraction of stars, then consider that all visible matter makes up only about 5% (I think) of all the energy in the universe. The forces required for any big crunch are also huge but thats fine too because the force in question is gravity. Now feel how strong the force holding you to the ground is - thats gravity and the force is proportional to your mass. Scale that force up by a number equal to (the mass of the entire universe divided by your mass) and thats how big the force will be (very roughly*)! As you predict its pretty big. Now in fact its not clear whether there is enough mass in the universe to provide a big enough force - certainly its very close, but maybe not quite enough - but thats no problem either as all that will happen is that we won't get a big crunch. Finally this paragraph is just for interest. These questions don't make it more likely that God exists.

Paul didn't wrote Acts, he gave a sign to know this and is in 2 Thessalonians 3: 17I always sign my letters as I am now doing: PAUL. and every letter he wrote start with his name, if got a bible close to you check it out.

Cheers.

*Hmm. This is very rough. It also depends on distance, so near the moment of the big crunch you need to take the number we just found and multiply by (the distance to the centre of the earth divided by the size of the universe) all squared. Now at this point in time, this is extremely small, but just before the big crunch, the universe will shrink to almost nothing, so this number will grow to huge proportions. This is all very rough because I should be using General relativity of course but it serves the purpose of showing you the forces are more than reasonable. Your question is a good one but these calculations have all been done by scientists many times before remember

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Brad, just because you don't have the stomach for this debate doesn't mean other shouldn't.

got it, my point is some are believers and others not, and there seems to be nothing we can do to convince each other anyway which one is correct, we can have long spanning debates till we're blue in the face, as Mike stated, it requires an amount of FAITH from each part, you have your belief, I have mine.... lets respect that.

btw, brilliant signature pic!!!!!!!!!

[monza gorilla 1]

You've finally come round to my way of thinking Brad! Remember we did this before and got nowhere? Well, they're at it again.

[pabloh20 1]

Thanks for the info. It is quite likely that Paul wrote Corinthians but not Acts, traditionally attributed to Luke, a follower of Paul, although Wikipedia claims this is questioned by modern thinkers. As I say I believe Paul, and thus Luke or whoever actually wrote Acts, never met Jesus. Apparently most scholars put its date of composition about 50 years after Jesus died and the earliest complete copies of the Bible to survive are from hundreds of years after Jesus lived, and thus should not be uncritically accepted as even telling us what Paul et al thought.

I know Paul didn't write Acts (I just couldn't decide whether you genuinely didn't know or not ), my point was that you were saying that the writings in the Bible weren't written by eye witnesses, but in this case many of Paul's writings, usually in the form of letters, and therefore his experiences are in the Bible and are direct accounts. Seems you mentioned wikipedia, that says Paul's letters are undisputed. So what Paul thought is in the Bible, well I guess it is if you want to believe it.

Fwiw I've been to Church for most of my (relatively short, so far) life and have certainly had this story drilled into me. I can't remember the details now and I doubt they matter - has anyone read all the claims of alien abductions before dismissing them? Who here has listened carefully to what suicide bombers say about their religious experiences before deciding they are probably not divinely inspired? People can genuinely believe and be mistaken - it happens all around us.

I didn't actually mean it like that, just to me your answer didn't really seem in context with the question Mike asked you, that's all.

My biggest problem with organised religion is that they have an anti-education attitude. How many Churches even tell you what biblical scholars say about the Bible's composition? I know many Xians who justify their beliefs by testimony in the Bible, but then turn out to think that the Gospels were actually written by the disciples themselves! (For a start how many profoundly well educated, or even literate, fishermen would there have been 2000 years ago I wonder?) How many churches tell you all possible viewpoints and let you make your own mind up, rather than drilling their own beliefs into you? In my experience, none. That attitude would be enough for any uni in the western world to be shut down, but religion gets away with it by exploiting followers' fears and hopes (and understandable ignorance at times).

Don't forget, Murray, these are are only your own experiences - I've certainly been to Churches that don't have an anti-education attitude and give you alternative viewpoints, so I guess my experiences are different to yours in that sense. It sounds to me like your judging the whole of religion by your own experiences, which is understandable, I suppose. I guess I judge these things on my own experiences of religion, but I know that there are many different viewpoints out there - it's one of the reasons I think some Churches drill their beliefs into you because they know it's impossible to go through life without coming across conflicting views. I'm not saying that it's right, just that I understand it.

Relativity works just fine pabloh! We still experiment using it of course but mainly to test other theories.

Again, if this sounded argumentative, it wasn't meant to be, sorry. I am genuinely interested because, as I said, when I was studying it they hadn't got the theory to work as they expected it to.

You've finally come round to my way of thinking Brad! Remember we did this before and got nowhere? Well, they're at it again.

I wasn't here the first time, MG, but it's been pretty civil which is why I have posted a couple of times on it again even though I said I wasn't going to!! To me it's always interesting to get different viewpoints on things. I am not trying to convert people or anything, I just like finding out other point of views because they quite often make you think and analyse things a bit more.

[monza gorilla 1]

I wasn't here the first time, MG, but it's been pretty civil which is why I have posted a couple of times on it again even though I said I wasn't going to!! To me it's always interesting to get different viewpoints on things. I am not trying to convert people or anything, I just like finding out other point of views because they quite often make you think and analyse things a bit more.

I was just having a gentle dig at Brad . Differing points of view are always welcome around here. After all it would be mighty boring if we all thought/believed the same thing! Actually this time round it has been extremely civil and good natured. Maybe we've mellowed a bit since the last time.

[Max Mosley 2]

it requires an amount of FAITH from each part, you have your belief, I have mine.... lets respect that.

Well of course we have to respect each others' views but I really think saying anything goes because of faith is a bit of a cop out tbh. One point of view must be more justified than the other, and we ought to be able to deduce which it is by discussion. That said I don't want to convert anyone really, if anything I want to test my own beliefs.

I know Paul didn't write Acts (I just couldn't decide whether you genuinely didn't know or not ), my point was that you were saying that the writings in the Bible weren't written by eye witnesses, but in this case many of Paul's writings, usually in the form of letters, and therefore his experiences are in the Bible and are direct accounts. Seems you mentioned wikipedia, that says Paul's letters are undisputed. So what Paul thought is in the Bible, well I guess it is if you want to believe it.

Yes but its a big if because we only have copies dating from hundreds of years later, that are known to be inconsistent in many ways, and which have been copied over and over again into and out of now dead languages. My point about eye-witnesses was really about the rest of the Bible though - Paul didn't meet Jesus, he just followed what other people told him, which shows exactly how the Bible story spread imho. Also you say the Pauline conversion story was in Acts, so its probably not an eye-witness account.

Don't forget, Murray, these are are only your own experiences - I've certainly been to Churches that don't have an anti-education attitude and give you alternative viewpoints, so I guess my experiences are different to yours in that sense. It sounds to me like your judging the whole of religion by your own experiences, which is understandable, I suppose. I guess I judge these things on my own experiences of religion, but I know that there are many different viewpoints out there - it's one of the reasons I think some Churches drill their beliefs into you because they know it's impossible to go through life without coming across conflicting views. I'm not saying that it's right, just that I understand it.

Thats interesting but tbh I am highly skeptical that I could go to any Church and get a fair and balanced account of an atheist's view, a Jew's and a Muslim's alongside the preacher's own views. If there is a kind of Church that does that, let me know and I'll give it a try. Looking at the major denominations it just doesn't happen: its a point of principle to Catholics for instance that the Pope is infallible - you won't learn about sex education in a Catholic church. I mean how many churches would invite an atheist to have a debate/discussion with the preacher on a sunday morning, or any other time? Its this lack of real questioning that is my main problem. No school RE class would get away with it.

Again, if this sounded argumentative, it wasn't meant to be, sorry. I am genuinely interested because, as I said, when I was studying it they hadn't got the theory to work as they expected it to.

I wasn't here the first time, MG, but it's been pretty civil which is why I have posted a couple of times on it again even though I said I wasn't going to!! To me it's always interesting to get different viewpoints on things. I am not trying to convert people or anything, I just like finding out other point of views because they quite often make you think and analyse things a bit more.

Don't apologise, as Mike says we're just having a chat in our virtual pub! Its good for us all to question our beliefs.

[Schumikonen 2]

Oh regarding your questions, no external force is required in the Big Bang because total momentum is conserved, as far as I know anyway. The energy required is enormous, but thats fine as there's lots of energy in the universe now - think of how many stars there are, then consider that we can't see any but a tiny fraction of stars, then consider that all visible matter makes up only about 5% (I think) of all the energy in the universe. The forces required for any big crunch are also huge but thats fine too because the force in question is gravity. Now feel how strong the force holding you to the ground is - thats gravity and the force is proportional to your mass. Scale that force up by a number equal to (the mass of the entire universe divided by your mass) and thats how big the force will be (very roughly*)! As you predict its pretty big. Now in fact its not clear whether there is enough mass in the universe to provide a big enough force - certainly its very close, but maybe not quite enough - but thats no problem either as all that will happen is that we won't get a big crunch. Finally this paragraph is just for interest. These questions don't make it more likely that God exists.

I know that God exist I am not rying to probe because nobody can do that. What I am trying to do make people understand that Science doesn't have the answers about how the universe and the life came to be.

Now back to your answer there are some point that you are not taking in count here you wrote this "The forces required for any big crunch are also huge but thats fine too because the force in question is gravity." that's true but as science says the universe in expanding wich means that space between galaxies, stars, planets and everything in universe is getting bigger so the gravitiy force will come to a point were they won't be affecting for each other like people in space they flote overthere because the gravity force of the earth is not strong enough to attract them, so how can gravity pull back something that is out of its reach? remember that universe is expanding.

"Now feel how strong the force holding you to the ground is - thats gravity and the force is proportional to your mass." This is only partialy true in earth, you will need another formula in the moon and another one in Saturn, I said partialy true beacuse the higher you are the wicker the gravity is and speed also afect this formula like you can see in artificial satellites as close they are to earth the faster they must fly or travel around the earth to stay in space, if we take that to the expanding universe we'll find out that everything in space is really moving faster than artificial satellites, there will be a point as I said before when galaxies will be so far one from another and still getting farer that gravitiy will be force that only be applicable for the objetcs close to then only.

"The energy required is enormous, but thats fine as there's lots of energy in the universe now" but that was the same energy that was holding all the matter of the universe in just one point (A point with no dimensions volume zero) breaking another physics proprety impenetrability (impenetrability is the name given to that quality of matter whereby two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time.) and scientists says that all the matter of the universe was in one point, what this really means is that all the matter of the universe came out of nowhere or better out of the nothing, like created but scientists says that matter can not be created so they prefer to believe that all the matter of the universe was concentrated in one nonexistent point even when that break all physical laws known to the date, and got a theory Big Bang(with is a law that have not been probe) to demostrated their thinking and sometimes they used another theory (relativity)to sustain it.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

I was just having a gentle dig at Brad . Differing points of view are always welcome around here. After all it would be mighty boring if we all thought/believed the same thing! Actually this time round it has been extremely civil and good natured. Maybe we've mellowed a bit since the last time.

Lol yes...

[narain fan 0]

I was just having a gentle dig at Brad .

indeed,it was as gentle as gentle can get around here

[Max Mosley 2]

I know that God exist I am not rying to probe because nobody can do that. What I am trying to do make people understand that Science doesn't have the answers about how the universe and the life came to be.

Yes but I already accept we don't have all the answers. My point is that religion, or postulating a God, gets us precisely nowhere. How does God explain the scientific questions you ask any better than the Big Bang theory?

Now back to your answer there are some point that you are not taking in count here you wrote this "The forces required for any big crunch are also huge but thats fine too because the force in question is gravity." that's true but as science says the universe in expanding wich means that space between galaxies, stars, planets and everything in universe is getting bigger so the gravitiy force will come to a point were they won't be affecting for each other like people in space they flote overthere because the gravity force of the earth is not strong enough to attract them, so how can gravity pull back something that is out of its reach? remember that universe is expanding.

Gravity always attracts masses to each other, just very weakly if they're far apart. This is no problem because a weak force does not mean the masses will not move, only that they will move slowly (acceleration will be low technically).

"Now feel how strong the force holding you to the ground is - thats gravity and the force is proportional to your mass." This is only partialy true in earth, you will need another formula in the moon and another one in Saturn, I said partialy true beacuse the higher you are the wicker the gravity is and speed also afect this formula like you can see in artificial satellites as close they are to earth the faster they must fly or travel around the earth to stay in space, if we take that to the expanding universe we'll find out that everything in space is really moving faster than artificial satellites, there will be a point as I said before when galaxies will be so far one from another and still getting farer that gravitiy will be force that only be applicable for the objetcs close to then only.

No because gravity works at all distances. We can see the effect our galaxy has on very distant ones!

"The energy required is enormous, but thats fine as there's lots of energy in the universe now" but that was the same energy that was holding all the matter of the universe in just one point (A point with no dimensions volume zero) breaking another physics proprety impenetrability (impenetrability is the name given to that quality of matter whereby two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time.) and scientists says that all the matter of the universe was in one point, what this really means is that all the matter of the universe came out of nowhere or better out of the nothing, like created but scientists says that matter can not be created so they prefer to believe that all the matter of the universe was concentrated in one nonexistent point even when that break all physical laws known to the date, and got a theory Big Bang(with is a law that have not been probe) to demostrated their thinking and sometimes they used another theory (relativity)to sustain it.

The energy can be the same even when the matter is concentrated in one point. "Impenetrability" is not a genuine scientific concept.

Nevertheless you are basically right that the origin of the universe is not well understood by scientists. All I say to you is how did God make the universe? And how did God make God? And at what time did God make time? And...?

[pabloh20 1]

Yes but its a big if because we only have copies dating from hundreds of years later, that are known to be inconsistent in many ways, and which have been copied over and over again into and out of now dead languages. My point about eye-witnesses was really about the rest of the Bible though - Paul didn't meet Jesus, he just followed what other people told him, which shows exactly how the Bible story spread imho. Also you say the Pauline conversion story was in Acts, so its probably not an eye-witness account.

I know what you were getting at with regards to eye witnesses, which is why I said in this case. I also know what you're saying about copies of the Bible with regards to languages, however the dead sea scrolls contained copies of the old testament dating back 2000 years, so there is a point of reference to be able to analyse wording, etc. In fact, I have just looked it up & the NIV Bible, for example, has incorporated some of the information from the scrolls, however the texts were remarkably similar to the Hebrew Bible currently in use.

Thats interesting but tbh I am highly skeptical that I could go to any Church and get a fair and balanced account of an atheist's view, a Jew's and a Muslim's alongside the preacher's own views. If there is a kind of Church that does that, let me know and I'll give it a try. Looking at the major denominations it just doesn't happen: its a point of principle to Catholics for instance that the Pope is infallible - you won't learn about sex education in a Catholic church. I mean how many churches would invite an atheist to have a debate/discussion with the preacher on a sunday morning, or any other time? Its this lack of real questioning that is my main problem. No school RE class would get away with it.

Well, I personally think it's a bit too much to expect a preacher from a particular denomination to be able to give a fair & unbalanced view of other religions - mainly because there are so many, that it would be impossible to know the ins & outs of every religion, denomination, etc. I'm not sure it's even possible to give an atheists view, because presumably they differ in what caused them to be an atheist. They can only give a generalised 'world view' if you like, but you can ask the questions - not during a morning or evening sermon, maybe, but there a usually other meetings, etc which give you the opportunity if you so wish.

Yes but I already accept we don't have all the answers. My point is that religion, or postulating a God, gets us precisely nowhere. How does God explain the scientific questions you ask any better than the Big Bang theory?

Nevertheless you are basically right that the origin of the universe is not well understood by scientists. All I say to you is how did God make the universe? And how did God make God? And at what time did God make time? And...?

It doesn't, Murray, is the honest answer, but I think what people are trying to get at is that there are unanswered questions whichever side of the fence you're sitting on. In my, admittedly very limited, mind I don't see the Biblical view as being any more far fetched than the big bang theory - as crazy as that may sound to people, but hey, each to their own!!

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Yes but I already accept we don't have all the answers. My point is that religion, or postulating a God, gets us precisely nowhere. How does God explain the scientific questions you ask any better than the Big Bang theory?

Gravity always attracts masses to each other, just very weakly if they're far apart. This is no problem because a weak force does not mean the masses will not move, only that they will move slowly (acceleration will be low technically).

No because gravity works at all distances. We can see the effect our galaxy has on very distant ones!

The energy can be the same even when the matter is concentrated in one point. "Impenetrability" is not a genuine scientific concept.

Nevertheless you are basically right that the origin of the universe is not well understood by scientists. All I say to you is how did God make the universe? And how did God make God? And at what time did God make time? And...?

John 1:verse1...."In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God"

God operates by the spoken word, He speaks and it materialises, same way He did in Genesis 1 when he created the earth and everything on it, everything He creates is a reflection of His power, it comes from within him. Nobody made God, because b4 time started there was God, our minds can't grasp it, thats why we have all these questions with no answers. Thats why God started by saying in Genesis 1...In the beginning,.... that's all we need to know....He does'nt take us back to where say for instance Lucifer's rebellion began in heaven, or something like that... yet by mercy when we're in Him and you're on another level with God, he reveals things through the Bible, like for instance, Lucifer's rebellion. get it???

I don't need to know how the Galazies or anything else operates, it won't ensure my survival here or in the afterlife, all I need do is to believe in the Word of God, and thats not a big thing to do....

[Max Mosley 2]

It doesn't, Murray, is the honest answer, but I think what people are trying to get at is that there are unanswered questions whichever side of the fence you're sitting on. In my, admittedly very limited, mind I don't see the Biblical view as being any more far fetched than the big bang theory - as crazy as that may sound to people, but hey, each to their own!!

Yeah thats right. But importantly that means that no one should bring up the creation of the universe as evidence that God might exist! The unanswered questions remain whether we believe or not. So one simply can not argue that problems with the Big Bang theory support the existence of God.

John 1:verse1...."In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God"

God operates by the spoken word, He speaks and it materialises, same way He did in Genesis 1 when he created the earth and everything on it, everything He creates is a reflection of His power, it comes from within him. Nobody made God, because b4 time started there was God, our minds can't grasp it, thats why we have all these questions with no answers. Thats why God started by saying in Genesis 1...In the beginning,.... that's all we need to know....He does'nt take us back to where say for instance Lucifer's rebellion began in heaven, or something like that... yet by mercy when we're in Him and you're on another level with God, he reveals things through the Bible, like for instance, Lucifer's rebellion. get it???

I don't need to know how the Galazies or anything else operates, it won't ensure my survival here or in the afterlife, all I need do is to believe in the Word of God, and thats not a big thing to do....

Brad its always great to hear different views on this but are you suggesting this better explains the evidence than anything science can offer? Your view is logically possible but you don't provide any reason to believe it unless you're arguing that the above explains where the universe comes from better than science can.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Brad its always great to hear different views on this but are you suggesting this better explains the evidence than anything science can offer? Your view is logically possible but you don't provide any reason to believe it unless you're arguing that the above explains where the universe comes from better than science can.

I don't have proof other than my belief, so does everyone else, as you can see it's from the Bible...

science will never ever proof where the univers comes from, no one will ever know exactly unless we invent space travel and go back to the so-called beginning, it's all fruitless and useless...

I find it even useless typing this...

[pabloh20 1]

Yeah thats right. But importantly that means that no one should bring up the creation of the universe as evidence that God might exist! The unanswered questions remain whether we believe or not. So one simply can not argue that problems with the Big Bang theory support the existence of God.

I didn't mean it as evidence God exists, just purely that one side or the other has unanswered questions - no more, no less.

But you could also use your example as a vice versa - just because there are unanswered questions with regards to God and creation of the universe, doesn't mean the big bang theory is true.

However, Murray, you seem to be an intelligent person and you will find your own path in life. Obviously all your views & opinions, religious or otherwise, are wrong of course, but aside from that you're ok!!

[Max Mosley 2]

OK Brad. If anything goes then anything goes as you say. My view is that we can look at the arguments for and against God and decide which is most justifiable and rational. After all God made us rational if He exists, and He would surely have wanted us to think about whether He exists.

I didn't mean it as evidence God exists, just purely that one side or the other has unanswered questions - no more, no less.

But you could also use your example as a vice versa - just because there are unanswered questions with regards to God and creation of the universe, doesn't mean the big bang theory is true.

However, Murray, you seem to be an intelligent person and you will find your own path in life. Obviously all your views & opinions, religious or otherwise, are wrong of course, but aside from that you're ok!!

Right back at you my friend. Yes so we agree that bringing up the origin of the universe is pointless to deciding whether or not God exists. Thats really all I wanted to establish here recently. Some people think that God somehow solves the problem and they suggest this makes it more likely that He exists. This is called the cosmological argument and is widely thought bankrupt, as we've agreed.

I would simply go one step further and suggest that any unnecessary belief that has no reasonable justification is akin to believing in Santa Claus. It is logically possible but with no evidence to support it, most people would work on the basis that it is false, or at least they would not base their life decisions on the hope that he (Santa) exists. Instead, rather than believe something for which we have no good justification other than hope, I try to accept the facts and uncertainty in our existence head on.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

OK Brad. If anything goes then anything goes as you say. My view is that we can look at the arguments for and against God and decide which is most justifiable and rational. After all God made us rational if He exists, and He would surely have wanted us to think about whether He exists.

There are basically two kinds of people in the world Mr Murray Walker, believers and non-believers, make believer fall under non-believers. How can you be a child of God and still question Him, wether He exist, this goes againts the principal of believing, rationally speaking. But He gave us a very wonderful thing called.....choice, we can either choose to accept Him.... or not...

[Kati 0]

hahaha I've lost myself somewhere so I have no idea how Kimi saying sh*t on tv thread became a God thread at all...

[BradSpeedMan 6]

hahaha I've lost myself somewhere so I have no idea how Kimi saying sh*t on tv thread became a God thread at all...

God works in myterious ways my dear....

[Max Mosley 2]

There are basically two kinds of people in the world Mr Murray Walker, believers and non-believers, make believer fall under non-believers. How can you be a child of God and still question Him, wether He exist, this goes againts the principal of believing, rationally speaking. But He gave us a very wonderful thing called.....choice, we can either choose to accept Him.... or not...

I don't see that as an issue. If I do my best to figure it out how can He complain. He surely won't send me to Hell because I used the brain He gave me and came to the wrong conclusion because He made me too stupid.

[Kati 0]

God works in myterious ways my dear....

...yeah! Surprising isn't it?

[Max Mosley 2]

Well its convenient. I'll give the big man that.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Nevertheless you are basically right that the origin of the universe is not well understood by scientists. All I say to you is how did God make the universe? And how did God make God? And at what time did God make time? And...?

For God to have made the universe, and time, he would have to be outside of 'time' as a measurement. If you exist in a single moment, you exist for eternity. As to how He made the universe, that would be like explaining to your fish how you made a calculator. An understanding of the sleeping God, with Brahma sitting on a lotus flower, constantly opening and closing his eyes/mouth, and creating universes, each with physical laws 'run' by an Indra would possibly give you an explanation of sorts....or it would give you an amusing story at least

[goferrarigo 0]

I found something interesting while looking at the dilbet blog, Here it is from Scott Adams:

Stem Cells

Dilbert Blog reader Brenda left this comment yesterday:

---- Start quote ----