STRIP FOR Jun 9, 2008
Comments
User Name: marianne
Jun 29, 2008
0
Oh man. I was in exactly that situation these last weeks. Dilbert strips are so accurate that it starts to get scary sometimes !
User Name: Theophilus
Jun 13, 2008
0
I think you misunderstand me: I do not in any way think the Big Bang theory defective: the Laws which I cited back it up by confirming that the Universe must have had a start time.
And do you reject Aristotle's statement that every effect must have a cause? If you do, then the Laws I cited, the Big Bang, and all other scientific ideas are, in all probability, no closer to the truth than the idea that the Universe fell out of the ear of a giant rabbit!
And once again we are faced with the dilemma of an effect without a cause. God is that which would exist if nothing existed. I am a scientific person, but I believe that every process that reveals knowledge must have a starting point, and I think it more scientific to be clear that my science starts with God, rather than be vague, and attempt to fool the unwary into thinking I have no starting point: that my knowledge is pure logic, and therefore must be true.
And do you reject Aristotle's statement that every effect must have a cause? If you do, then the Laws I cited, the Big Bang, and all other scientific ideas are, in all probability, no closer to the truth than the idea that the Universe fell out of the ear of a giant rabbit!
And once again we are faced with the dilemma of an effect without a cause. God is that which would exist if nothing existed. I am a scientific person, but I believe that every process that reveals knowledge must have a starting point, and I think it more scientific to be clear that my science starts with God, rather than be vague, and attempt to fool the unwary into thinking I have no starting point: that my knowledge is pure logic, and therefore must be true.
User Name: tlhintoq
Jun 13, 2008
+1
Dear Theophilus,
Intersting that you suggest I should study a bit more. Might I suggest you work on those reading skills a bit. Its tlhintoq (with a Q) not tlhintog (with a G). <laugh>
Let's see... Using science laws to justify the existance of a god. Novel approach. Where to begin... "If the universe has existed forever then all the energy would have died out by now." But the universe as we know it, in its present form hasn't existed forever. Science gives us an age since the big bang, thus a starting point. You can't take part of a science and ignore the other parts that don't back up your hypothisis.
"Something cannot come from nothing." This line of argument really doesn't work either. You can't say 'The universe didn't just spring to life from nothing, it had to come from something, thus God' without the rest of the argument saying 'So where did God come from?' If you are going to try to follow a causal relationship from one to the other you don't get to just stop following that trail when you get to the point you like. Its not a bus you can just hop off when it reaches your church.
By trying to create a source for all that matter and energy you trip yourself. If you can be comfortable saying "Well, god just always has been" and that she/he/it contained so much matter and energy as to create a universe PLUS still be alive and powerful afterward then I would think it not such a stretch to be comfortable saying the universe started at a fixed point in history, and that even now all those stars are loosing energy and dieing as the universe expands, completely in accordance with the physical laws that you pointed out.
Intersting that you suggest I should study a bit more. Might I suggest you work on those reading skills a bit. Its tlhintoq (with a Q) not tlhintog (with a G). <laugh>
Let's see... Using science laws to justify the existance of a god. Novel approach. Where to begin... "If the universe has existed forever then all the energy would have died out by now." But the universe as we know it, in its present form hasn't existed forever. Science gives us an age since the big bang, thus a starting point. You can't take part of a science and ignore the other parts that don't back up your hypothisis.
"Something cannot come from nothing." This line of argument really doesn't work either. You can't say 'The universe didn't just spring to life from nothing, it had to come from something, thus God' without the rest of the argument saying 'So where did God come from?' If you are going to try to follow a causal relationship from one to the other you don't get to just stop following that trail when you get to the point you like. Its not a bus you can just hop off when it reaches your church.
By trying to create a source for all that matter and energy you trip yourself. If you can be comfortable saying "Well, god just always has been" and that she/he/it contained so much matter and energy as to create a universe PLUS still be alive and powerful afterward then I would think it not such a stretch to be comfortable saying the universe started at a fixed point in history, and that even now all those stars are loosing energy and dieing as the universe expands, completely in accordance with the physical laws that you pointed out.
User Name: Theophilus
Jun 12, 2008
0
And to respond to twalt, the God described in the Bible has no actual name: the various things we say as his name, including "God", are merely titles that reflect his various attributes. Jehovah is a latinization of a hebrew word meaning "One who saves". "I am who I am" reflects his self-existence: the fact that he can act, and not merely react, as I proposed in another post.
timdiprose, I take offense at your characterization of religious zealots: I am one myself, and I think that I am a rational and practical person.
timdiprose, I take offense at your characterization of religious zealots: I am one myself, and I think that I am a rational and practical person.
User Name: Theophilus
Jun 12, 2008
0
tlhintog: I think you should study a bit more. Nothing can act: it can only react. That is, if the law of cause and effect does, in fact, exist, which it must, or everything we think we know may perhaps be false. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the world is running out of usable energy. If the Universe has been around forever, we would have run out of usable energy long ago. Unless there is an infinite amount of energy, which directly contradicts the First Law of Thermodynamics, then our Universe must have, at some point, started. But how: nothing cannot become something; we cannot have an effect without a cause. In which case we require some sort of, as Aristotle put it quite aptly, an "Unmoved Mover" or "Uncaused Cause." Any such a being would be a god.
OR
TO SAVE YOUR
FAVORITE STRIPS
