Back to Home

God & Science 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 | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
REVISED QUESTION FOR MACULA / KYLE

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Mohammad Isa Mirsiam on October 2, 2001 15:52:56 UTC

My dear Dr. Kyle,

Would you please read the following thesis once more? I think you may have missed my point. The point I am trying to make is that by deductive logic one can establish and prove that there is a sentient being who created all things including "Star Dust." (Please understand, no pun intended here!) It seems to me that you have not or may be unable to explain (with worldly science) who or what or how did this STAR DUST come in to existence. (i.e. the coming in to existence of pre-biotic matter [visible and invisible] itself.)

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.

(c.) Will not be argued against because it is understood because the explanation is addressed to people who deny the existence of a creator and is telling them that only two possibilities remain.

Detailed explanation of the first two is not necessarily needed here too because the position of (a.)& (b.) are UNTENABLE.

Clarity of expression often convinces people of the truth or untruth of a statement. Mental seeing here, more than physical seeing, is believing or rejecting.

It is inconceivable for something to come out of or be made by nothing at all.

It is even more inconceivable that it should bring itself into being (without intelligence!).

Hence the only conclusion is that it must have a creator outside itself.

A thesis is therefore untenable if it means the denial of any maker or cause whatsoever. But admitting 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 whom people believe or why shouldn’t it even be the "MATTER" of the MATERIALISTS?

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 (logically must) have the attribute (Sentient) of the God to whom the prophets invite us. How So?

The creator must be of a "DIFFERENT NATURE" (NOT STAR DUST ETC.) from the things created because, if he is of the same nature as they are, he will have to be temporal and therefore need a maker. It follows that "NOTHING IS LIKE HIM."

If the maker is not temporal then he must be eternal.

If he is eternal, he cannot be caused.

If nothing causes him to come in to existence, nothing causes him to continue to exist, which means that he must be self-sufficient.

If he dose not depend on anything for continuance of his existence, then that existence can have no end. The creator is therefore eternal and everlasting: "he is the first and the last."

With Love and Understanding,
Jisbond

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 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