NeedToUseYou
Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005 From: None of your business Status: offline
|
edited to remove part of a sentence that made no sense. quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyEllen (noting you list agnosticism as one of your loves/likes) Convince me as to how and why we can know God/the supreme divine presence/whatever one wishes to call it, intimately as to nature and how and why we can and must strive to know in order to escape this world. As a gnostic, I shall be grading you accordingly... E Raises hand I want to try. I'm agnostic to though. This is all going to be either assumption, or loosely known facts. LOL. First most of the values set in our universe must be set within a narrow range for the universe to ever be able to form. If gravity was weaker, the stars wouldn't be able to hold together. If you research it, if any of the constants of the universe were off by more than a few percent or less, it just wouldn't hold together in a manner that would be stable. I have seen the probability of these being random before, and the number was insurmoutably huge. So, the assumption is something, or someone is controlling the constants. Why else would all of them fall into range perfectly? So, whether it is God, or something outside our universe that is unintelligent controlling the very constants that make the universe for all effective purposes exist in a coherent manner as opposed to nothing but particles or nothing but massive black holes for example. It would seem given the choices, it's either random chance which would make 1 in a million look like good odds, an unintelligent mechanism outside our universe, or an intelligent entity. Given that these constants would seem to require intelligence to figure out which would produce a "usable" universe, it seems an intelligent being would be the most logical assumption. Also, given the assumption that the universe started as a single point or close enough. Then why did that point explode? What variable changed in the equation that suddenly made it explode when there was nothing according to science that could have caused a change, since obviously the whole of the universe was scrunched to a spec. If the big bang assumption is true, and evidence supports it. Then which is more logical. A. That the point was there for billions of years(always actually)then just went "oh, I'm going to explode even though nothing changed" B. Something changed and caused an impact on the point, if so that must of been from "outside" what we call the universe. Thus functioning on a different level of existance. This assumes that the point or near point of matter/energy was always there, since if it wasn't then it must have come from somewhere else, and if it came from something else, now not entwined in the universe in an observable manner, Then the implication is that there must be another plane of existance, or universe. Why must you believe in God? Well, if you rationalize that given the same parameters you will recieve the same results, then something must of intervened to cause the big bang to begin with. Why would something change for no reason? It doesn't. So, that would mean, that something or someone acted to cause it, and upon causing a change, set the constants in place as well. .
< Message edited by NeedToUseYou -- 5/31/2007 12:27:17 PM >
|