From: "Robert Comer" 

> How could God exist otherwise?

That's my point actually. That being that pure science is no closer to
scientifically answering the true question of where everything came from
than religion is, it's just a leap of faith too...

>That is, suppose the universe *is*
> God?

Good question, I don't know, but I think not.

>That would help reconcile physics with metaphysics, and ID with
> evolution

Interesting thought, but would that be truly necessary?

>(although one could certainly question the IQ of the
> Designer).

I don't, all I have to do is look at something (anything) and wonder at the
design and functionality.

>Once you stop thinking of God as something external to the
> universe, then an eternal universe isn't so unthinkable.

What about entropy?

> I wasn't saying, I was just asking why you though there had to be a
> "first" universe.  Eternity goes both ways.

That's the way corporeal beings think, everything has a begin time and an
end time and a progression from one to the other, and we think that way
because this universe is designed like that.  Everything has a beginning
and an end.

> Sure it's a leap of faith.  We will probably always be unable to see
> beyond the singularity that created the particular instance that is
> us.

It's nice to hear you say that, a lot in the scientific community wouldn't,
even when it's obviously so.

--
Bob Comer


"John Cuccia"  wrote in message
news:mr6an153c8jg47qdaa644gnk1t8v6m344l{at}4ax.com...
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 09:47:33 -0500, "Robert Comer"
>  wrote:
>
>>How could it exist otherwise?
>
> How could God exist otherwise?  That is, suppose the universe *is*
> God?  That would help reconcile physics with metaphysics, and ID with
> evolution (although one could certainly question the IQ of the
> Designer).  Once you stop thinking of God as something external to the
> universe, then an eternal universe isn't so unthinkable.
>
>>It seems like a scientific copout to say that it's just always been there,
>
> I wasn't saying, I was just asking why you though there had to be a
> "first" universe.  Eternity goes both ways.
>
>>no scientifically verifiable proof, just a leap of faith. (sound familiar?
>>)
>
> Sure it's a leap of faith.  We will probably always be unable to see
> beyond the singularity that created the particular instance that is
> us.
>>
>>--
>>Bob Comer
>>
>>
>>"John Cuccia"  wrote in message
>>news:bl89n1926kqu5n3kvgsu09uq8o5man3jpo{at}4ax.com...
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 06:51:18 -0500, "Robert Comer"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>>There had to be something to begin with.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Bob Comer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"John Cuccia"  wrote in message
>>>>news:o658n1lofjau2ihqj3enucgo54riposng6{at}4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 22:41:27 -0500, "Robert Comer"
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, that's just the way it was first
described, then they suggested
>>>>>>> scalar
>>>>>>> fields could allow universes to bubble off
each other and now there
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> probably some new theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Still the same, where did the first universe come
from -- it had to be
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>big
>>>>>>bang type event if you go by that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who says there was a first universe?
>>>>
>>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5