Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site aecom.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!genrad!wjh12!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!aecom!teitz From: teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Re: Re: More replies to Ken (and general comments) Message-ID: <1016@aecom.UUCP> Date: Thu, 13-Dec-84 14:45:04 EST Article-I.D.: aecom.1016 Posted: Thu Dec 13 14:45:04 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 16-Dec-84 08:37:40 EST References: <1114@trwrba.UUCP> <> <1905@nsc.UUCP> <397@ucsfcgl.UUCP> <993@aecom.UUCP> <316@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: Albert Einstein Coll. of Med., NY Lines: 75 > >>>But if there were no God, man would not exist. Nothing would exist. (This > >>>could get into some really mind-bending philosophy....) [SARGENT] > > >>Well, this leads us to the logical next statement: If whatever created > >>God did not exist, God would not exist. Of course, this holds true for > >>whatever created whatever created God, ad nauseum. Why do we stop with > >>one level of indirection? [ARNOLD] > > > this assumes that G-D was created. [TEITZ] > > Ah, let's make a little list: > > A) Let's assume: (1) the universe exists, (2) the universe was created by > a deity, (3) the deity was created by ???, ... > > B) Let's assume: (1) the universe exists, (2) the universe was created by > a deity, (3) the deity didn't have to have been created > > C) Let's assume: (1) the universe exists, (2) the universe didn't have to > have been created by an entity/deity > > Since A) results in an endless chain, if B) is considered feasible [God didn't > have to have been created], then C) is just as feasible [the universe > didn't have to have been created by God], and much less presumptive. > You can't have your cake here and eat it too. When one proclaims, > "How could the universe not have been created? There must have been > a creator.", then one might have to accept the same possibility about > the creator (that IT must have had a creator). If you don't accept > that (God didn't have to have a creator), then, once again, it is > equally fathomable that the universe didn't have to either. > > (By the way, what's this arbitrary demarcation between the universe and god?) > -- > "Pardon me for breathing which I never do anyway so I don't know why I bothered > to mention it--Oh, God, I'm so depressed." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr Your C presumes alot too. The universe is time bounded, it has a beginning and an end. If one believes in a G-D who created everything, including the universe, then it is not hard to see that He also created time and therefore lives in a timeless environment ( I don't even pretend to understand a timeless environment because I live in one that is bounded by time ). If G-D created time then it would be impossible for G-D to have been created since that implies that there was time before G-D created it. To argue that the universe is not bounded by time is ridiculous because we live in the same universe and we definitely have a timed environment. If you are going to say that the universe underwent a change at some time from timelessness to timed existence, well, then I have no answer, but you also have no proof ( and besides why assume a change in the universe ). If you believe, though, that the universe is timebounded, then where did it come from? If you like the big-bang theory, from where the bang? The theory, as I understand it, assumes gasses floating around that exploded. Where, pray tell, did these gasses come from? They were "just there". If so why not think that somehow they were put there ( by, you guessed, G-D ). When it comes to the origin of the universe, science is as much in the dark as anyone else. There are no proofs of G-D. How can someone prove something that does not exist in any way we can imagine. The incomprehensibility of G-D is not in the fact that we are dumb, but rather the fact that we do not have the background into understanding Him. If I were to try and look at an advanced physics book ( in which I have an extremely limited background ) I would have no realistic hope of understanding the material. If I learned the basics though and gradually worked up to the advanced material I would understand alot more of what I saw. So too with G-D. We have no way of looking and understanding G-D. He gave us a good start, the Bible. If one reads it carefully we get a very limited view of G-D. We have no advanced texts for G-D study, only the introductory text. And that text isn't very clear either. I can't prove G-D to anyone, not even myself. But to say that science is the endall of truth is also absurd. Eliyahu Teitz.