Back to Home

Blackholes2 Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes II | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Atri on October 20, 2000 17:10:50 UTC


We shall get to the subject of WhiteHoles and BlackHoles from this point on. Once the basis is established then my writings will make more sense those who have questioned it. I am aware that my writings are at this moment fragmented and need much explaining.


there are only three ways of how life came to be:

a. life either is created, or made, or caused by nothing at all (i.e. it came out of nothing. or
b. life is the creator of itself. or
c. life has a creator, cause, or maker, outside itself.

the third (c.) will not be argued against because it is understood because the explanation is addressed to people who deny the existance of acreator and is telling them that only two possibilities remain. detailed explanation of the first two is not nessesarily needed here too because the position of (a.)& (b.) are untenable.
clarity of expression often convinces people of the truth or untruth of a statemnt. mentle seeing here, more than phisical seeing, is beliving (or rejecting).

it is inconcevable for somthing to come out of or be made by nothing at all, and it is even more inconcevable that it should bring itself into being.Hence the only conclusion is that it must have a creator outside itself. a thesis is therefor untenable if it means the denial of any maker or cause whatsoever. but admiting that this is indeed so, one might still wonder why should that cause or maker or creator be the God to whom the prophets were inviting people? why shouldn`t it be one of the many other gods in whome people belive or why shouldn`t it even be the "matter" of
the materirialists? In a nutshell the answer is as follows: to explain the coming into being of temporal thing, the creator (or cause or maker) for which we are looking, must (logicaly must) have the atribute of the God to whom the prophets invite us. How So?

The creator must be of a different nature from the things created because, if he is of the same nature as they are, he will have to be temporal and therefor need a maker. it follows that "nothing is likehim." if the maker is not temporal then he must be eternal. but if he is eternal, he can not be caused, and if nothing causes him to come in to existence, nothing causes him to continue to exist, which means that he must be self sufficient. and if he dose not depend on anything for continuance of his existance, then that existence can haveno end. the creator is therefor eternal and everlasting: "he is the first and the last."

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2021 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins