hanson_mike@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
: On Oct 5, 10:56?am, Louis Epstein <l...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
:
:> All details can be legitimately questioned and investigated,
:> but to deny the necessity of an Infinitely First Cause is
:> wholly insane.
:
: And you've said the same thing in various different ways in this
: thread, but can you prove that assertion without invoking it as part
: of the proof?
:
: I do tend to agree, as it happens - at least in part - but the past
: 103 years of physics have taught us again and again that common sense
: cannot be trusted in matters of physics and cosmology because it is
: routinely flouted by the universe. This is not of itself an argument
: for denying First Cause, but it does constitute an entirely rational
: basis for not taking it for granted and for expecting it, at the very
: least, to come with a twist.
:
: We already know, for example, that First Cause cannot be "first" in
: the chronological sense because time itself is a post-Big-Bang
: property of the universe. Remove the universe and you remove any
: notion of before and after, leaving First Cause in a certain amount of
: ontological difficulty. There are ways around this, but don't expect
: First Cause to be first, and don't expect it to be a "cause",
: either...
You have to remember that God is more-dimensional than the material
universe and transcends all its properties.The limitations we seem
to see can't apply to God.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
|
