Originally Posted by Ixtellor

And yet you keep referring to Aquinas and Lewis, as evidence.
I read CS Lewis many years ago and was thourougly "underwhelmed"

I am in the process of reading Thomas Aquinis (sp?) now. So far I am at the point where he is trying to convice us that God is self evident.



1) So you seem to indicate you believe in the conservation of mass or the 2nd law of thermodynamis. Yet, you will probably claim that God created mass, thus indicating you DON'T believe in that as a strict law.

2) Human understanding of math doesn't work or fully explain the Big Bang. It is still under study. The new super collider might give us further information.

3) There are several hypothesis about what happened before the "Big Bang".

4) Since time did not exist until the Big Bang (see Einstein) There is no beginning/end/middle prior to the Big Bang. So you can't say "what happened before", because there was no before, Time did not exist.

5) Lets look at the various hypothesis of the "origin" and the Universe. In one corner we shall place Relgion, in the other we shall put Science.
In your educated opinion, which corner has done a more accurate, and better theories of our universe?
(Hint: Do you still think Zeus's parents created the universe?)

You guys keep saying, there is only one god, and all religions lead to the same path. Does this hold true for Zeus worship?



Correct. There is actually no such thing as proof, there is ONLY Theory.


Nothing in existance can be proven. You can only disprove or provide supporting evidence.

God can not be disproven, because you just have to create an ad hoc explanation.
In addition, it would be impossible to disprove the existance of something that is "BEYOND human comprehension, space/time, and the laws of nature!!"



I challenge you to PROVE to me in Mathematical terms or any other terms, that an Invisible, all powerful bunny named Greg, who lives in San Francisco, whose power and existance is beyond the laws of nature, and whose only interest is directing/coercing Human's into eating more chocolate, does NOT exist.
(Hint: You can't disprove any fairy tale, or wacked out thing that I can think up, as long as I add - it is beyond the laws of nature/human comprehension!!"

Your challenge was no different than mine.

More importantly... I am going to make this big so you totally get it.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE PERSON MAKING THE CLAIM, NOT THE SKEPTIC.

Since we are talking about SCIENCE, this is how it works. You make claim - YOU prove it.

If I claim the Thanksgiving Day Llama, cries tears of solid gold. The onus would be on ME to prove my claim, never on you to disprove it.

Ixtellor

P.S. Kneel before Vishnu or suffer eternal Hell Fire!