The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: INFINITY and GOD.  (Read 9411 times)

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
INFINITY and GOD.
« on: 01/12/2006 08:08:32 »
 In scientific and popular publications we can see an often usage
 of a word  “infinity”.
For example: the space is infinite, time is infinite, and the Universe is infinite.
But anywhere it is not explained, how exactly the infinity is connected with
concreteness.
One understands infinity as the opportunity to move infinitely on a straight line,
 never encountering any barrier.
The other understands infinity as an opportunity to increase the numbers infinitely
(atoms, stars, galaxies, the moments of time) 1, 2.3, … … etc,
always adding one point to the number already counted.
G. Hegel has named such understanding of infinity as “bad, unreasonable”.
Hegel thought, that in contrast to "bad" should exist also the
 “Reasonable infinity “.By his opinion, the REASONABLE INFINITY
 should be something positive and concrete.
At the same time he demanded to specify the following:
1) a сonnection between the infinite and the concrete,
2) a сonnection of infinity not only with quantity, but also with quality,
3) to explain an inconsistent character between the infinity and
 the concreteness.
For thousands of years people used a concept of God in order
to explain this interrelation.
 But Hegel would like to find more rational, scientific explanation.
======================   
And how does the modern science refer to this question?
The concept of infinite, eternal, absolute means nothing
to a scientists, causes them bewilderment and "horror".
 They do not understand how they could draw any real,
concrete conclusions from these characteristics.
A notions of "more", "less", "equally, "similar" could not be conformed
 to a word infinity or eternity.
The Infinity/Eternity is something, that has no borders,
 has no discontinuity; it could not be compared to anything.
Considering so, scientists came to conclusion that the
infinity/eternity defies to a physical and mathematical definition
 and cannot be considered in real processes.
Therefore they have proclaimed the strict requirement
(on a level of censor of the law):
 « If we want that the theory would be correct,
 the infinity/eternity should be eliminated ».
 Thus they direct all their mathematical abilities,
 all intellectual energy to the elimination of infinity.
They think out various mathematical cunnings
 (method of renormalization) .
.However, R. Feynman said, that:
 «The method of renormalizations is a way
 to tidy up rubbish under a carpet».
  Using artificial mathematical methods, it is possible to get out
of any theoretical difficulty,  but the question remains:
«What relation does it have towards nature? »
 ================   
Whether it is possible to give a specific
characterization to a REASONABLE INFINITY?
Yes. It is possible. 
Now it is consider, that reference frame connected with
relict isotropic radiation T = 2,7K is absolute.
But T = 2,7K is not a constant factor.
This relict isotropic radiation continues to extend and decrease
and, hence, in the future will reach T=0K.
The Universe is  Nothing:  T=0K.
 The Physics is first of all Vacuum:T=0K.
 Absolute God can exist only behind this
Absolute reference system : Vacuum T=0K.
=====================   
The Quantum physics approves, that in the beginning
God /Vacuum created " virtual particles ".
What a geometrical and physical parameters can
the “virtual particles’ have in Absolute Zero, in T=0K?
==============   
Vacuum in the beginning has created the " light quantum ".
And from all particles, only and only the quantum of light
 is a privileged particle.
Only the light quantum has
 a maximal, constant, absolute quantity of c=1.
No other particle can travel with the speed c = 1.
If quantum of light always flies rectilinearly c=1, it is a mad one.
Is he (it) really mad?
No.
In Vacuum, in a condition of rest
 its internal impulse is equal to zero h=0.
But Quantum of Light has two kinds of internal impulse. 
1)Under one internal impulse (Planck,s spin h =1)
a quantum of light flies rectilinearly with speed (c = 1).
A quantum of light behaves as a particle.
2) Under other internal impulse
 (Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck's spin ħ = h / 2pi)
 a quantum of light rotates around of his diameter
and is known as electron.
A quantum of light behaves as a wave.
Very strange particle is quantum of light.
 Quantum of light stays in Vacuum and on it nobody and nothing renders influence.
 It is independent and makes a decision in which of three conditions it occurs.   
1. In a condition of rest its internal impulse is equal to zero h=0.
2 .In a condition of uniform rectilinear movement its impulse h=1.
3. In a condition of rotation around of his diameter its impulse ћ =h/2π.
So it can work only with particle  that has his own consciousness.
They are alive, spiritual particles.
His own consciousness is not static but can develop.
The development of conscious scale goes
 " from vague wishes up to a clear thought ".
This evolution proceeds during hundred millions (billion) years.
====================   
On the question:
What inhale the Life in formulas and equations ?
What must be present in a body to make it alive ?
The answer is:
Soul. Quantum of Light.
Because, from all particles, 
only and only the quantum of light is a privileged particle.
================ 
All of us have the personal God and it is Quantum of light.
============   
http://www.socratus.com


 

Offline VodreB

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: INFINITY and GOD.
« Reply #1 on: 13/12/2006 04:32:06 »
Wow, you have put allot of thought into that. But, this all assumes one thing: "what we know, IS true" Now, because we cannot see this Quantum light as its called, we must then make 'guesses' on it, no matter how accurately we believe we are correct, it cannot be tested beyond theory. Don't get me wrong thought, i LOVE theoretical physics, all though I'm not able to comprehend most of what i read. But it is what it is, theoretical. It is based off what we "know" so in a sense, i compare theoretical physics to the bible.(sorry to offend any Christians reading past this part) - First, my opinion is that god is just as real as fairies and unicorns, i will be taking the stance for next part of this that god doesn't exist - Look how much studying has been done on the bible. To me, that is like theoretical physics, you must assume what you know is to be true, because you are using what you know as the foundation for your theoretical claims. I'm not sure this will make sense to anyone reading this, but what I'm trying to say is this, Knowledge can only be tested by Knowledge, thus it is circular reasoning. Ill explain my view more if someone wants, otherwise it will just waste my time, and this servers space.
 

Offline Ben6789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 760
  • And then there were none.
    • View Profile
INFINITY and GOD.
« Reply #2 on: 09/05/2007 16:52:04 »
deleted as inapproprate

WHat was, jolly? ???
 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
INFINITY and GOD.
« Reply #3 on: 10/05/2007 17:11:16 »
VodreB wrote :
Knowledge can only be tested by Knowledge,
===================
Descartes  said: "I think , therefore I am"
Buddhist monk say "I think not, therefore I am"
==========================   
Consciousness is real but nonphyslcal.
Consciousness is connected to physical reality .
================     
There are many theories explaining the origin of consciousness.
 Here some of them.
1)
 "God" "blowing" "consciousness" "into man"
 "whom he created from clay"
2)
 20 billions years ago all matter (all elementary particles,
all quarks and their girlfriend antiquarks, all kinds of waves:
electromagnetic, gravitational, muons….) -
all  was assembled in "singular point".
Then there was a Big Bang .
Question: when was there consciousness?
a) Before explosion,
b) At the moment of explosion,
c) After the explosion.
It is more probable, that it existed after the explosion.
Then there is a question: what particles (or waves)
 were carriers of consciousness?
 Mesons, muons, leptons, bosons (W+, W- , Z) ,
quarks, …gluons field ….. ets …?
On this question the Big Bang theory does not give an answer.
But can it be that consciousness was formed as a result
of the interaction of all elementary particles, all waves, all fields?
Then, on the one hand, the reason for the origin of the Big Bang is clear:
everything was mixed, including consciousness, and when it is mixed
 then it is possible to construct all and everything.
But on the other hand, it is not clear:
why farmer John can think simply, clearly and logically.
3) Ancient Indian Veda approve, that origination of consciousness
 is connected with the existence of spiritual, conscious particles - purusha .
4) Modern physics affirms that the Quantum of light
 is a privileged particle as in one cases,
 it behave as a particle, and in other case, acts in a way which causes a wave.
How is a particle capable of creating a wave?
 The behaviour of Light quanta (dualism ) is explained simply.
 A quantum of light has its own initial consciousness.
 This consciousness is not rigid, but develops.
 The development of consciousness goes
 "from vague wish up to a clear thought".
===================================   
The man acts:
1)
usually under logic program,
2)
 sometimes on intuition (unconsciousnessly).
============================
Our computer-brain works on a dualistic basis.
In a usual daily life all we do is done logically,
under an influence of our feelings.
On the other hand, in intuition we act: 
1)
 Without the participation of the sense organs.
2)
 Without the participation of the logic mental processes.
When these conditions will be created, then
we will acquire new forces, new abilities.
========================= 

 

Offline Batroost

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
  • There's no such thing as a dirty atom!
    • View Profile
INFINITY and GOD.
« Reply #4 on: 10/05/2007 19:19:54 »
Quote
If quantum of light always flies rectilinearly c=1, it is a mad one.
Is he (it) really mad?
No.

What is this intended to mean? How is it related to science?
 

fleep

  • Guest
INFINITY and GOD.
« Reply #5 on: 10/05/2007 19:42:42 »
In scientific and popular publications we can see an often usage
 of a word  “infinity”.
For example: the space is infinite, time is infinite, and the Universe is infinite.
But anywhere it is not explained, how exactly the infinity is connected with
concreteness.
One understands infinity as the opportunity to move infinitely on a straight line,
 never encountering any barrier.
The other understands infinity as an opportunity to increase the numbers infinitely
(atoms, stars, galaxies, the moments of time) 1, 2.3, … … etc,
always adding one point to the number already counted.
G. Hegel has named such understanding of infinity as “bad, unreasonable”.
Hegel thought, that in contrast to "bad" should exist also the
 “Reasonable infinity “.By his opinion, the REASONABLE INFINITY
 should be something positive and concrete.
At the same time he demanded to specify the following:
1) a сonnection between the infinite and the concrete,
2) a сonnection of infinity not only with quantity, but also with quality,
3) to explain an inconsistent character between the infinity and
 the concreteness.
For thousands of years people used a concept of God in order
to explain this interrelation.
 But Hegel would like to find more rational, scientific explanation.
======================   
And how does the modern science refer to this question?
The concept of infinite, eternal, absolute means nothing
to a scientists, causes them bewilderment and "horror".
 They do not understand how they could draw any real,
concrete conclusions from these characteristics.
A notions of "more", "less", "equally, "similar" could not be conformed
 to a word infinity or eternity.
The Infinity/Eternity is something, that has no borders,
 has no discontinuity; it could not be compared to anything.
Considering so, scientists came to conclusion that the
infinity/eternity defies to a physical and mathematical definition
 and cannot be considered in real processes.
Therefore they have proclaimed the strict requirement
(on a level of censor of the law):
 « If we want that the theory would be correct,
 the infinity/eternity should be eliminated ».
 Thus they direct all their mathematical abilities,
 all intellectual energy to the elimination of infinity.
They think out various mathematical cunnings
 (method of renormalization) .
.However, R. Feynman said, that:
 «The method of renormalizations is a way
 to tidy up rubbish under a carpet».
  Using artificial mathematical methods, it is possible to get out
of any theoretical difficulty,  but the question remains:
«What relation does it have towards nature? »
 ================   
Whether it is possible to give a specific
characterization to a REASONABLE INFINITY?
Yes. It is possible. 
Now it is consider, that reference frame connected with
relict isotropic radiation T = 2,7K is absolute.
But T = 2,7K is not a constant factor.
This relict isotropic radiation continues to extend and decrease
and, hence, in the future will reach T=0K.
The Universe is  Nothing:  T=0K.
 The Physics is first of all Vacuum:T=0K.
 Absolute God can exist only behind this
Absolute reference system : Vacuum T=0K.
=====================   
The Quantum physics approves, that in the beginning
God /Vacuum created " virtual particles ".
What a geometrical and physical parameters can
the “virtual particles’ have in Absolute Zero, in T=0K?
==============   
Vacuum in the beginning has created the " light quantum ".
And from all particles, only and only the quantum of light
 is a privileged particle.
Only the light quantum has
 a maximal, constant, absolute quantity of c=1.
No other particle can travel with the speed c = 1.
If quantum of light always flies rectilinearly c=1, it is a mad one.
Is he (it) really mad?
No.
In Vacuum, in a condition of rest
 its internal impulse is equal to zero h=0.
But Quantum of Light has two kinds of internal impulse. 
1)Under one internal impulse (Planck,s spin h =1)
a quantum of light flies rectilinearly with speed (c = 1).
A quantum of light behaves as a particle.
2) Under other internal impulse
 (Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck's spin ħ = h / 2pi)
 a quantum of light rotates around of his diameter
and is known as electron.
A quantum of light behaves as a wave.
Very strange particle is quantum of light.
 Quantum of light stays in Vacuum and on it nobody and nothing renders influence.
 It is independent and makes a decision in which of three conditions it occurs.   
1. In a condition of rest its internal impulse is equal to zero h=0.
2 .In a condition of uniform rectilinear movement its impulse h=1.
3. In a condition of rotation around of his diameter its impulse ћ =h/2π.
So it can work only with particle  that has his own consciousness.
They are alive, spiritual particles.
His own consciousness is not static but can develop.
The development of conscious scale goes
 " from vague wishes up to a clear thought ".
This evolution proceeds during hundred millions (billion) years.
====================   
On the question:
What inhale the Life in formulas and equations ?
What must be present in a body to make it alive ?
The answer is:
Soul. Quantum of Light.
Because, from all particles, 
only and only the quantum of light is a privileged particle.
================ 
All of us have the personal God and it is Quantum of light.
============   
http://www.socratus.com


Greetings from Canada; (For the open-minded)

If I may be permitted to comment from a (sometimes unpopular) Christian perspective:

I would first ask,(if you live in "a western culture),"What year is this?"

You would say "2007".

And I would say, "2007 years since what beginning point?"

And if you were honest and open-minded enough to go on, you should be saying, "Umm. Well, since a guy named "Jesus Christ" was allegedly born."

I would ask if you believe that he actually existed.

If you didn't say, "Well, I guess so", or if you declared him to be a "fantasy", or something like that,I would have to ask:

"Do you honestly believe that with all of the genius that has gone by in the last 2000 years, that no one could have discovered if it had all been a great fraudulent scheme which none of the genius of humankind has been able to disprove?"

What would you say?

Thanks

fleep


 

Offline Batroost

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
  • There's no such thing as a dirty atom!
    • View Profile
INFINITY and GOD.
« Reply #6 on: 10/05/2007 19:47:22 »
Quote
"Do you honestly believe that with all of the genius that has gone by in the last 2000 years, that no one could have discovered if it had all been a great fraudulent scheme which none of the genius of humankind has been able to disprove?"

Fraud, No. Mis-representation possibly? As it's historical in nature how would you prove it either way? The further you get from an event the less reliable evidence you're likely to have.

Being open-minded I'd have to ask "In what way would it appear different if it wasn't true?"
 

fleep

  • Guest
INFINITY and GOD.
« Reply #7 on: 12/05/2007 23:11:43 »
Hi Batroost;


Quote
Fraud, No. Misrepresentation possibly? As it's historical in nature how would you prove it either way? The further you get from an event the less reliable evidence you're likely to have.

Being open-minded I'd have to ask "In what way would it appear different if it wasn't true?"

Well, my friend, in an abstract way, you are asking me to “prove there is a God”. That’s a tough job. I’ve never seen Him either, but I’ll tell you what I have seen that gets me to where I am in my old age.

I’ve been taught from, then seen, read, and studied the collection of books of the earliest scribes that have been gathered into a highly-studied two-part tome called “the Bible”. This too, is “education”.

I’ve seen historical accounts (by many authors) of the persecution and massacre of many who lived when Christ was on Earth, (and even long after), simply for trying to spread His message to the world. It goes on even today.

I’ve seen and read only some of the innumerable biographical accounts of many writers of history that are far more intelligent than I, giving believable evidence through their study of the original accounts, to the authenticity of the events in the Bible.

I’ve seen accounts of the many atrocities (mutually) perpetrated on differing societies because of their concept or true belief of whom or what God is. This is a human fault.

I’ve seen a general close-mindedness to the fact the there are only two possibilities: A) There is a God. And (B) There is no God.
(This question makes me wonder why the highest degrees of intellect would ever deem an answer unworthy of study. Just for starters, why would anyone not be at least “a little concerned” that they just might exist in the wrong 50%? )

I’ve seen the recorded histories of the many that have given their lives, rather than deny their fundamental beliefs in God. “Faith”, and basic “good living”, is all that is demanded of believers in exchange for a life in infinity.

I’ve seen, (very basically speaking), two kinds of societies: There are those without any belief in God or faith, who have elected to just live for today, and “take whatever they like” of their human brother/sisterhood. And then there are those who lead less harmful, or even harmless lives, (possibly only) because they are afraid there just might be a great “Power” out there that exists beyond the theatre of what they are willing to contemplate.

In the latter group, these people range from those who live only in faith, awaiting an historical promise; to those in a more fearful state of faith, as they run back and forth across the lines of social propriety; and finally to the “cardboard believers”, who like to be seen in a great light, but use what they call their “faith” to whatever advantage they see fit. Most, I would say, (from only my own observations, run pretty much in the middle “group”. We are human, therefore, we make “mistakes”.

I always say that with 6.5 billion people on the Earth, each with a different mind, a different upbringing, a different philosophy and all, means that there are 6.5 billion “religions” in the world. I personally find the Christian (group) option to be the best proven, the most reliable (for a stable life), and the only one that promises anything to me, after living what is only ever, a very few years on this planet.

If I had to make a choice which street to walk on a very dark night; the wide, black street, or the well-lit narrow alleyway, I think you know which one I would choose.

Some decisions are not all that hard to make, when you think about them.

A science or a theory forum is an odd place to philosophize about something that absolutely no one can truly know. I usually just read them, but I saw a friendly name, so I thought I’d say “hello” from a deeper level.

No I didn’t prove there is a God, but here are three explanations:
It has been proven many times and in many ways that there is One.
When He wants to prove Himself, He will, being the only One who ever could.
I don’t have to run face-first into blank brick walls. I will use only doorways that open for me.

Peace;

fleep
 

Offline Batroost

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
  • There's no such thing as a dirty atom!
    • View Profile
INFINITY and GOD.
« Reply #8 on: 13/05/2007 12:04:07 »
Friend Fleep,

Quote
(This question makes me wonder why the highest degrees of intellect would ever deem an answer unworthy of study. Just for starters, why would anyone not be at least “a little concerned” that they just might exist in the wrong 50%? )

And enter Pascal.... who suggested that believing in god was a better bet; if you are wrong you lose nothing. If you are right you win. Personally, I'm not convinced this really counts as belief. ::)

science or a theory forum is an odd place to philosophize about something that absolutely no one can truly know. I usually just read them, but I saw a friendly name, so I thought I’d say “hello” from a deeper level.

Indeed, but it is surprising (to me) how often questions like this arise in scientific fora. I well remember a fascinating lecture to about three hundred 18 year olds about astrophysics. The first question anyone asked at the end was "Do you believe in god?"!!!

I studied theology alongside my Physics degree - just a single lecture a week for the three years but gets you thinking deeply about what you believe and why you believe it. I've moved from being a christian believer to trying to be tolerant and understanding to a whole range of religions. From there it's not a very large step to concluding that all of them have an intrinsic value (e.g. in terms of moral framework) but that the existence of one or more gods is not then a necessity. It was quite a big step for me to decide 'I am an atheist' but having done it I do feel more comfortable in myself. I guess I am primarily someone who tries to take a scientific viewpoint. This is, like your own, a personal choice.

Jolly - thanks for the input. You are obviously sincere in your beliefs for which you have my respect, though I do not share your point of view. I'd be hesitant to use the word 'fraud' in relation to the origins of christianity; but you must already be aware that there were many heated debates in the early church about what constituted the 'truth' about Christ. It was nearly 400 hundred AD before the current list of books in the Old/New testaments was agreed upon. There is a school of thought that suggests the New Testament could have been a very different story if Paul's viewpoint had not overcome opposition. In particular, Jesus's brother James - who led the early 'church' in Palestine is postulated to have held quite different about the divine nature (or otherwise) of Jesus. We'll probably never know anymore as new items of contemporary evidence are rarely found, but there is always the possibility that the Christian religion is founded on mis-apprehension of events, as could be said about any other religion, or indeed, scientific dogma. We cannot always see things in black-and-white. What we may have got wrong might be the most interesting thing of all...

Best wishes,

Batroost.
 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
INFINITY and GOD.
« Reply #9 on: 16/05/2007 17:23:12 »
Abridged version of Peter Russell's book 'From Science to God'
/ Reality and Consciousness:/

http://twm.co.nz/prussell.htm
 

jolly

  • Guest
INFINITY and GOD.
« Reply #10 on: 12/06/2007 21:30:26 »
I have put the bits, in quote boxes to make it easier to read!

Abridged version of Peter Russell's book 'From Science to God'
/ Reality and Consciousness:/

http://twm.co.nz/prussell.htm

Because all we ever know is the product of the mind operating on the raw sensory data, Kant reasoned that our experience is as much a reflection of the nature of the mind as it is of the physical world. Time and space, he argued, are not inherent qualities of the physical world; they are a reflection of the way the mind operates. They are part of the perceptual framework within which our experience of the world is constructed.

I completely agree! Richard rorty to a degree follows the same line! The mirror of nature!

Einstein agreed with Kant; all we ever know of the underlying reality are the ways in which it appears as the two very different qualities of space and time.
This is the startling conclusion we are forced to acknowledge; the "stuff" of our world—the world we know and appear to live within—is not matter, but mind.

consciousness is primary. Time, space and matter are secondary; they are aspects of the image of reality manifesting in the mind. They exist within consciousness; not the other way around. These qualities—truth, absolute, eternal, essence, creator—are amongst those traditionally associated with God.

From this perspective, the statement "I am God" is not so puzzling or deluded after all. Although it might be more accurate to say that "I am" is God, or possibly, "God is consciousness".We think that the tree we see is the tree in itself.

I would say conciousness is the god of your reality, but not the God of infinity! For there is most certainly a seperation, even though you experience both in your own consious! You could argue that its a trinity!

The underlying reality
Consciousness
and God.
   
When we realize that they are not the same thing at all, but are very different indeed, a revolutionary new model of reality emerges. Space, time and matter fall from their absolute status, to be replaced by light in the physical realm, and by consciousness (the inner light) in the world of experience.

This shift in superparadigm has not happened yet. The existing model runs even deeper than did the geocentric view of the cosmos, and will probably meet even more obstacles than did the Copernican Revolution, (although now, somewhat ironically, it is science not the church that is the establishment, and will be the source of the greatest resistance).

Nevertheless, I believe all the pieces are in place, they have only to be put together into a coherent model.
New paradigms stand or fall according to their ability to account for persistent anomalies, and incorporate new findings. The emerging new superparadigm accounts for consciousness—an intractable anomaly for the old model, remember. It offers radically new perspectives on some of the most perplexing problems in contemporary physics.
And, most significantly, points towards a resolution of one of the oldest challenges of all—the reconciliation of the scientific worldview with the spiritual.

He is totally right scientists will not except it! or probably even come close to understanding it!
But that might be a good thing as people from other areas may move beyond them!

We really do, need to re-look at reason, for the conscious, is a mixture of thought, feeling, and exturnally inturnalised influence.

 
« Last Edit: 12/06/2007 21:32:20 by jolly »
 

Offline the environmentalist

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
INFINITY and GOD.
« Reply #11 on: 19/09/2007 21:15:30 »
I do not see what all this fuss is about. why Arn't people allowed to believe what they want? why do people have to come up with "religion". If people went around saying "this is what I believe and this is why I believe it" then I would be happy, and many people do, but many don't, for example, "if you don't believe in God, you WILL go to hell (or so I believe)"  this is just downright bullying, and it doesn't work, you cannot be made to believe in something in this way,it simply makes people like me uneasy. I am not convinced in Christianity, but what if it IS right and I will go to hell, there is no way someone can make me believe in the Christ and God(short of brainwashing). therefore, I am doomed to go to hell (if Christianity is true).  which I would be fine with except for the sheer unfairness of it. I was speaking to a friend of mine earlier,who just happens to be a literal Christian. And I said to him
"surly you cannot be certain that your god exists, its is merely a matter of chance that you were born into a Christian family, if you were born into a Muslim family, you would believe without a doubt that Allah exists, so how can you be so sure that your perseption of God is right just because of your upbringing."
to which he responded
"If I were born into a Muslim family I WOULD believe that Allah exists, but Christianity would still be correct."

to me the logic concerning my friend's reply is flawed, can anyone else provide a better answer?

just a thought

(I think I may be flawed in my understanding of the word "Allah", please inform me if I am)
« Last Edit: 19/09/2007 21:29:07 by the environmentalist »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

INFINITY and GOD.
« Reply #11 on: 19/09/2007 21:15:30 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums