An atheist was aghast that I would “shamelessly indoctrinate” my children regarding Jesus the Christ and the religion that bears His name. It’s very tempting to look at others who think differently than we and then assume or feel that they are part of another species. It’s easier to denigrate and demonize that way. Truly, Christians and atheists are similar in many areas.
. Both think the other is unbelievably stupid
. Both think the other is living out wishful thinking
. Both are obsessed with the concept of a Creator God
. Both think the other lacks reason and intellectual honesty
. Both think the quality of their lives is enhanced by their beliefs
. Both accept and believe things that they simply don’t understand
. Both think the other is making the world a worse place in which to live
. Both formulate “logical” reasons why they don’t believe what the other one believes
. Both sides rarely admit to the fact that they indoctrinate their children with their beliefs
. Both beliefs require faith.
- Atheists’ faith is in their powers of intellect, science and pride
- Christian faith is in the person of Jesus the Christ.
. Both are born in rebellion to the idea that a God exists to whom they will someday be accountable.
. Atheists maintain that position throughout their lives by adhering to evidence that supports their position and discarding evidence that doesn’t.
. Christians have come to free their thinking and change their minds through spiritual and intellectual exploration. Christians come to their position by admitting and accepting evidence that cannot be successfully challenged or refuted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
Faith: Firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
Atheists do not have faith in their position. We merely don't believe in gods, because there is no evidence for them.
"Atheists maintain that position throughout their lives by adhering to evidence that supports their position and discarding evidence that doesn’t."
This is the problem - what evidence for gods do we discard? I don't mean evidence in your opinion, i mean hard evidence.
Rab, if you bother to read the drivel on this site, you will see that Mak just keeps repeating the same tired argument that there MUST be a God because something could not have arisen from nothing. He refuses to explain why God is his default explanation for the existence of the universe. He knows that the literal truth of the Bible cannot be seriously defended but he refuses to reject the resurrection myth. He does not explain why he believes some of the events described in the Bible but not others.
. Both think the other is unbelievably stupid
Nope, I don't think Christians are unbelievably stupid.
. Both think the other is living out wishful thinking
Nope, I think there are as many species of Christians as there are of atheists. Not all Christians "live" out of their belief in their God. They just believe there is such a thing.
. Both are obsessed with the concept of a Creator God
Nope, I am not obsessed with that concept. I try to dismantle the written by "apologists" who live out of the ignorant sub-population of Christians who buy anything that will mock science (when they think it goes against their beliefs).
. Both think the other lacks reason and intellectual honesty
Nope, I think that only of the likes of those apologists I was talking about, and of those who buy their merchandise.
. Both think the quality of their lives is enhanced by their beliefs
Well, nope, I do not think my beliefs regarding any gods (not just your God) make any difference in my life.
. Both accept and believe things that they simply don’t understand
Nope, I accept that I cannot know everything. For instance, I know very little about the Big Bang theory. I do not care if it reflects the way in which the universe started or not.
. Both think the other is making the world a worse place in which to live
Nope. Only those Christians who want their beliefs to pass for science would make the world a worse place.
. Both formulate “logical” reasons why they don’t believe what the other one believes
Nope, many Christians do accept that their main reason to believe is faith, and do not bother to try and disprove what science shows. I stopped believing in your God without formulating any arguments. God just stopped making any sense.
. Both sides rarely admit to the fact that they indoctrinate their children with their beliefs
Ha! Most Christians do admit that they indoctrinate their children with their beliefs. Come on!
. Both beliefs require faith.
Nope, only believing in invisible immaterial improbable contradictory things, such as your God, requires faith.
- Atheists’ faith is in their powers of intellect, science and pride
Nope, in my case it was actually that I was humble. I was willing to admit my mistakes. So, I would truly listen to my opponents, so that I would not misrepresent them ... so, I found them to make sense ...
- Christian faith is in the person of Jesus the Christ.
Wow! You did get one right! Congratulations!
. Both are born in rebellion to the idea that a God exists to whom they will someday be accountable.
Nope. We are born ready to learn whatever. Not ready to disregard any gods. Since there are no Gods, there is no possibility to be born "in rebellion" towards such thing. Your statement does not make any sense.
. Atheists maintain that position throughout their lives by adhering to evidence that supports their position and discarding evidence that doesn’t.
Nope, I used to "discard evidence" against my belief in God. Until the intellectual dissonance was unbearable. Now, I listen to both sides. So far, arguments for God are always fallacies and tricks.
. Christians have come to free their thinking and change their minds through spiritual and intellectual exploration. Christians come to their position by admitting and accepting evidence that cannot be successfully challenged or refuted.
Nope, Christians come to their beliefs by indoctrination. Afterwards, many do reject any evidence that contradicts their beliefs. Many go to the extreme of calling atheists who used to be Christians "false converts", or self-convince that atheists "deny the truth in unrighteousness". All mere tricks to keep reassuring themselves that God is obvious.
But you probably knew that.
Makarios, where did you take these ideas from? Obviously not very well thought.
Only if you learn from this one. Maybe your next post will be better.
G.E.
I glad I grew up in a family that taught me the Truth about God and the truth about the Jews.
“He refuses to explain why God is his default explanation for the existence of the universe.”
I’ve explained it many times.
Either matter is eternal or the First Cause is eternal.
If matter is not eternal, then either matter has the ability to create itself or the First Cause created matter.
If matter created itself, then matter pre existed itself
chronologically and physically.
We know that matter cannot be eternal
We know that matter cannot create itself
That leaves an eternal First Cause
If you can think of any other alternatives, thereby showing why I shouldn’t return to this time and again, you are welcome to explain it to me here.
Don't you think that it would be helpful to actually prove atheism, rather than just say, "I don't accept that evidence therefore I'm right."
Mak,
We don't assert that we are right, albeit we firmly believe (just like you do) that we are.
The onus to prove anything is on yourself. You and others alike, whether it be another chrisitian, a hindu, a muslim, a sikh - whatever - are the ones making the extraordinary claims. It is thus up to all of you to prove your claims.
If i said to you, i can fly completely unaided by anything other than the power of my mind, you would demand evidence.
If my response to your request to provide such evidence was, 'prove i can't', you would quite rightly discard my claim as one that has been made by a fool/madman.
oh, assuming the hypothesis regarding your belief of how the big bang occurred is correct, here is an alternative to the first cause. Sorry, i mean the First Cause.
We don't know.
Is that so hard?
We don't know what did it so it must be god. I can understand why that appeals to people, it gives them an unarguable answer for lives uncertainties - why we are here, how did everything come into existence, what happened after i die? etc.
What is wrong with simply admitting that we don't know what causes it.
I'm sure i have stated elsewhere on this blog, that according to the same line of thinking the Mpemba effect must be the work of god aswell, because we do not know for certain why it happens.
Hey Mak,
Either matter is eternal or the First Cause is eternal.
Why should there be a first cause just before matter? Why should matter be eternal? Why should these be the only two alternatives? I do not think our human ignorance allows for this dichotomy.
If matter is not eternal, then either matter has the ability to create itself or the First Cause created matter.
What about matter coming from something else rather than be created by something else? Why should matter be "created" by a first cause, rather than somewhere in the middle of "causes/effects"? What about energy/matter physics 101? Or something else?
If matter created itself, then matter pre existed itself
chronologically and physically.
Well, according to physicists, which I trust more than your false dichotomy fallacies, time is not a constant. So, pre-existing might not even mean anything.
We know that matter cannot be eternal
Truly? According to whom? Fist law of thermodynamics: matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Only transformed (even one into the other). Remember Einstein's famous equation? It gives you the equivalences between matter and energy:
E = mc^2
E: energy
m: mass (matter
c: speed of light
We know that matter cannot create itself
What do you mean create? As in come from itself? Well, if energy/matter can transform, then they can inter-convert, thus "create itself". Unless you were trying to say something else.
That leaves an eternal First Cause
Why would it be eternal? Why should it be intelligent and omni-everything?
Also, as I said, time is not a constant, remember? Even time "started" with the Big Bang (if we can say "started" given that there was no time either).
I should not have discussed each point, since your argument fails from the beginning. But hey, otherwise you would think I concede on something.
G.E.
"Why should these be the only two alternatives?"
I'm only passing on what the most brilliant philosophers over time have concluded.
============
What about matter coming from something else rather than be created by something else?
Because Big Bang tells us that prior to the singularity there wasn’t anything - ANYTHING!! - not even energy/matter physics 101?
================
“So, pre-existing might not even mean anything.”
Right. There are those who propose A theory of time (and those are the ones that you trust) but no one except those few individuals believe in A theory and no one, not even those individuals EXISTS anywhere but in B theory.
==========
“Truly?”
Yes
“According to whom?”
Mathematicians, Scientists, Philosophers
“Fist law of thermodynamics: matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed.”
Once it came into being, that’s true. However, prior to the singularity neither space, time, matter, energy nor the laws of physics existed.
Listen son, the fact is, the infinite exists only as an idea or as a concept. It does not exist in material realty. This is why we can say with confidence that matter / universe cannot be infinite and that they haven’t always existed.
In order to reach tomorrow what do we have to have first? Right. Today.
In order to have today, what did we have to have first? Right. Yesterday.
In order to have had yesterday what did . . . What? You got it? Ok - good.
Now, I’m sure that you know we say the universe began around 14.5 billion years ago, give or take. The universe had a beginning. How do we know? Because we’re sitting at today. In order to have today we had yesterday and so on and so on all the way back to day one. How do we know that? Because without day one we wouldn't have had day two and without day two we wouldn’t have had day three.
Without a starting point, without a push point without a beginning it is impossible to get to today.
That is why BOTH science and philosophy tell us that it is impossible to traverse the material infinite.
Time is not imaginary.
Time is not abstract or theoretical or conceptual.
Time is real.
Except for you and you A theory friends, Time is measured in real units.
===============
“What do you mean create? As in come from itself?”
No, as in bring itself into being from literally - nothing. This is not changing form. This is, for the purposes of our discussion creating from nothing, EVERYTHING.
============
“Why would it be eternal? Why should it be intelligent and omni-everything?”
It’s just that creating everything from nothing requires a Greatest Conceivable Being and that is what we call God. Why eternal? Because as I’ve said many, many times it’s either eternal or it created itself.
Existing outside of and prior to time, the Cause is eternal, infinite.
Existing outside of and prior to matter, the Cause is immaterial or Spiritual
Existing as the Creator of a universe as finely tuned and life sustaining as is ours it is going to be supreme in every way imaginable.
Existing as Something that can insert the equivalent volume of information and instructions of 1,000 sets of encyclopedias into the first living cell requires and intelligence far, far beyond anything that we can conceive.
Existing as the Creator of a universe as finely tuned and life sustaining as is ours it is going to be supreme in every way imaginable.
Yeah, the universe is so life sustaining and finely tuned for life that it's just filled with living creatures! From the incredible men who live on the sun, to those insect-like beings who live in the vacuum of space!
Wait...
What?
I'm only passing on what the most brilliant philosophers over time have concluded.
Argument from authority.
“Why would it be eternal? Why should it be intelligent and omni-everything?”
It’s just that creating everything from nothing requires a Greatest Conceivable Being and that is what we call God. Why eternal? Because as I’ve said many, many times it’s either eternal or it created itself.
Doesn't follow.
Existing as Something that can insert the equivalent volume of information and instructions of 1,000 sets of encyclopedias into the first living cell requires and intelligence far, far beyond anything that we can conceive.
Do you think that "the first living cell" had "the equivalent volume of information and instructions of 1,000 sets of encyclopedias"?
And why does it require an "intelligence"?
Mak, let's ignore the infinite regress created by your presupposition of a First Cause and assume that your argument (i.e. the cosmological argument) is correct. Where does that get you? Nothing in that argument points to the "creator" being any more infinitely good than evil. Nothing in that argument makes anything in the Bible (or any other supposedly holy book) true.
I should add that I find the "mystery" of what you deem to be explained by the eternal First Cause to be much more adequately explained by the fact that there may be a reality that is simply beyond our comprehension. I trust you have no difficulty accepting that it is impossible for an ant to understand the theory of special relativity. Evolution has simply not equipped that organism with the capacity to perform that mental task. Why should humans assume that evolution has endowed us with the capacity to understand all that there is to understand?
"Among Christian theologians and philosophers, there is no consensus view of God's relation to time. Aquinas believed God was extra-temporal. Craig believes God was non-temporal before the creation of the universe, but is in time now.Still others believe that time is a part of God's essence and as such it has no beginning or end."
Mak,
I'm only passing on what the most brilliant philosophers over time have concluded.
Naaaah! You must be kidding. Why philosophers too? Do you think they did know anything about physics?
I repeat, our human ignorance is no excuse to assume only those two possibilities. So, postulating from ignorance, and telling that we only have those two choices becomes ridiculous. It is better to be honest and say. Who the heck knows. But then you have no "argument." Right? So, why be honest?
Big Bang no matter and energy? Physics 101? Sorry, but no. While I know I am quite the ignorant about the Big Bang, you assumption that "there was nothing" is overstated. The theory clearly teaches that everything was concentrated into a very hot, ultra dense singularity. Why would it be ultra dense and hot if it has no matter nor energy? Physics 101 Mak, hot and dense imply energy and matter. When they say "nothing" they mean "nothing of what we see today", not a literal "nothing." Trying to descrobe a timeless situation is beyond our instincts Mak. This is what makes these every-day explanations so hard to come by, and so easy to misinterpret.
Now, since there was no time, we cannot talk about "previous", nor about "eternal" because "eternal" implies time.
So, since we will find it hard to argue about "eternal" matter, because of the timeless situation (which solves your problem with the infinite regress to come to today), the infinite regress also reflects much more our limited capacity to understand and rationalize infinities, rather than some physical impossibility to come to today if the universe were "eternal." Nice philosophical play, but do you truly know what it means?
Physicists are now working on what the heck are matter and energy (other than matter and energy?). That is not physics 101, but it seems like both are two states of the same thing. I will wait and see.
Yup, I trust them quite better than your false dichotomies because you have an agenda, and pretend to conclude from lack of evidence and incomplete knowledge, rather than admit ignorance and let it be.
Sorry pal. No fly. Too many problems from every angle.
G.E.
get_education wrote: Now, since there was no time, we cannot talk about "previous", nor about "eternal" because "eternal" implies time.
Stop it, you're going to give Mak a headache. He doesn't like to face reality or logic.
Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so ....
Oh, I was forgetting:
A cause for the Big Bang, is not necessarily a "first cause." There might be a zillion causes before that one. So, "first " relative to our universe, fine. But not necessarily for the whole thing. If and only if there is an origin to everything. Does everything have to have a cause? Maybe not. Does that mean God? Not necessarily.
Your necessity for a God behind it all, because you think intelligence is required is unfounded. Nothing in the Universe implies intelligence for it to begin. You being astounded at it does not mean that whatever is behind it is intelligent at all.
G.E.
Hey Atheist Missionary!
So you are in Ontario! nice province. I love Toronto. Such a cosmopolitan and interesting city.
G.E.
- Both think the other is unbelievably stupid
It's tempting but no, mostly I just think you're incredibly wrong (After much deliberation I have decided that Ray Comfort is genuinely stupid however)
- Both think the other is living out wishful thinking
How is the atheist's life wishful thinking? Maybe you should accuse us of being blissfully ignorant instead, and unaware of the damnation that awaits
- Both are obsessed with the concept of a Creator God
Yawn... so sick of this one. If you didn't go around saying there was one we wouldn't have to bother disagreeing. You could maybe accuse us of being overly concerned with the beliefs of others.
- Both think the other lacks reason and intellectual honesty
I definitely tend to think this about Creationists, because they make factual claims about things that are flatly contradicted by every natural record.
- Both think the quality of their lives is enhanced by their beliefs
I don't believe atheism enhances my life, rather I would say my life is unencumbered by religious beliefs.
- Both accept and believe things that they simply don’t understand
The difference being we accept things for which there is an unbroken (and non-mysterious) path to the deepest understanding. A chain of evidence. We don't accept things from on high.
- Both think the other is making the world a worse place in which to live
I'm actually offended by this... I sometimes forget that atheists are seen as actively evil rather than simply "lost souls"
- Both formulate “logical” reasons why they don’t believe what the other one believes
You have no evidence. Not a lot of formulation required there.
- Both sides rarely admit to the fact that they indoctrinate their children with their beliefs.
Not telling your children that there's a God is not on the same level of indoctrination as telling them there is.
- Both beliefs require faith.
Our faith is basically that truth and knowledge comes from evidence. It's the same faith that lets us build computers, bridges etc. Hardly comparable to a belief in [and astonishing loyalty to] a supernatural being who allegedly loves you lots but never makes an appearance and will send you to Hell if you don't believe.
. Both are born in rebellion to the idea that a God exists to whom they will someday be accountable.
Actually both are born utterly unaware of any such God until they are INDOCTRINATED into the concept from a very early age.
- Atheists maintain that position throughout their lives by adhering to evidence that supports their position and discarding evidence that doesn’t.
Which evidence is that again?
- Christians have come to free their thinking and change their minds through spiritual and intellectual exploration. Christians come to their position by admitting and accepting evidence that cannot be successfully challenged or refuted.
Here I call b*llsh*t... where do you and so many others get off declaring irrefutable evidence when you can't produce the merest shred. You are merely lying with this arrogant statement, unlike many Christians who accept that their faith is unsupported by evidence and make peace with that.
"Irrefutable" is not something anyone can honestly claim about any argument they make. The best they can do is make the claim and see if people refute it. And if you opened your eyes you would see that people refute your ideas constantly.
Mak,
With so many problems in your argument, I forget to tell you about other problems you create when you answer.
If God is eternal, and it is impossible to travel an infinite time, and, as you claim, time is not relative (contrary to what Einstein demonstrated), then God could never have come to creating anything. Since it is impossible to get to today from infinite time before today. According to yourself.
You are left where you wanted the Godless Universe to be.
G.E.
"Argument from Authority."
Does that presuppose that all authority is wrong?
===========
". . . it’s either eternal or it created itself." "Doesn't follow."
Oh crap. Not again. If there wasn't anything else, what other alternatives are there?
============
"And why does it require an "intelligence"?"
Are you aware of the creation of ANY information that did not require intelligence? Whether it's one sentence or 1,000 volumes the creation of information always points to intelligence. As Carl Sagan said, "If we could just receive even one sentence, we'd know that intelligence exists out there." or something like that.
==============
"Nothing in that argument points to the "creator""
Everything that begins to exist has an explanation of its existence either in the necessity of itself (it can't NOT exist) or in an external cause. A universe certainly isn't necessary. And if, in the beginning nothing material existed, what are you left with? Just be honest with yourself and follow the evidence.
============
"you assumption that "there was nothing" is overstated."
Good grief man! The difference between nothing and something can hardly be overstated.
Tell me, where exactly was this little dot of yours?
===========
“There might be a zillion causes before that one.”
(((Deep Sigh))) Just when I think I’ve educated every last atheist on the planet, another one comes along. Please Googel Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem.
What these Quantum Physicists have found is that ANY model of an expanding universe, be it theoretical such as the zillions that you propose or real as in ours requires a definitive space / time boundary, and singularity a Big Bang Creation Event. NONE of the proposed muti verses or Oscillating or Cyclic universes or those that come from Black Holes etc. etc. etc. NONE of them can be eternal in nature. ALL of them at some point, require a beginning and a Beginner.
==============
“Does everything have to have a cause? Maybe not.”
Oh Paleez. Even Hume said, “I have never suggested anything so absurd as to say that something can come into being without a cause.”
=================
“If God is eternal, and it is impossible to travel an infinite time, . . ."
No, you’re not listening. It is not possible to cross the MATERIAL infinite. Tell me this, why do you think that it’s possible for matter to be eternal but not Spirit? I know that you don’t believe in Spirit or Supernatural but surely, if matter can exist from eternity, and you do believe that it has, then I see no reason for why the Spirit cannot be eternal. Now, before you say anything, no, this cannot be turned around because we know from both science and philosophy that the material infinite does not exist. I thought you atheists actually listened to what science has learned. Oh, of course. That's only if it supports your world-view, not if it contradicts it. That's sad.
================
The wheel of Buddhist terms poster Velcro modular wall mural game. Doctoral dissertation for philosophy, title: The Interpenetration of Buddhist Practice and Classroom Teaching.
PARASITIC SPECIES INFESTATION alien robot telescope spaceship: audiobook first few tracks are good, PALE BLUE DOT as we transition to a knowledge based global society
as computing power increases exponentially and ubiquitous web enabled sensors allow for immersion in context relevant buddhist or ethics perspective, national broadband plan...
www.dharmaprinting.com augmented reality sociology subject index and table of contents Chinese military intelligence genius clones life energy word abacus sustainability transmission measurement context mapping twitter.com/globalcide is me Google for EXTINCTCULTURE please let me know what you think about this topic www.computer.org/pervasive (FOLDING@HOME and BIONIC software's, engineering 450 million new species to make deserts habitable or telepathic ecosystem maintenance) autodesk inventor prototyping software for genetics use the audio book list on audibles.com to build course of life coaching training young orphan people to be CIA certified ethical hackers download free at nowtorrents.com because if the current post world war 2 education system was meant to produce factory workers (not critical thinking curriculum video from best teacher nationally then teachers answer questions and do research while the kids watch, pause for Q+A, the videos podshifter software for iTunesU ) how much worse is this continuation of using the bible koran instead of critical mass ecosystem dynamics physics logistics?
google for flashcard database
subliminal education psychological profiling HDTV prenhall.com/dabbagh/
MIT OCW designing your life. The art of war flashcard deck, wikipedia article audio book the 48 laws of power... RAW stem cells movies: Eagle EYE, Minority Report, (gps and audio recording + all video survelance to DVR on web for all probation and parole ankle monitors, put more people on them and use software to monitor them, the probation or parolee pays for the ankle monitor and then gives it back to the probation office then the next probation pays for it again, thus buying another one) broadcom is makeing new version of these chips every two months now GPS + Bluetooth + WiFi + FM combo chip)
audio + video security DVR in juvinile prisons with audiobooks streaming leave the headphones you buy behind for the next inmate
lifehack.org/articles/productivity/the-ultimate-student-resource-list.html
selfmadescholar.com/b/self-education-resource-list
web 2.0 directories: ziipa.com and go2web20.net USE THE TAGS cloud, also lifehacker.com and lifehack.org SHARE 99ebooks.blogspot.com
youtube.com/homeproject
My dear Mak,
You are not listening. I got what you said. I have pointed to innumerable objections. While doing so, it looks like I conceded on one thing or another, but I did not.
Here more examples:
Tell me, where exactly was this little dot of yours?
What do you mean "where"? There was no "where" other than the singularity?
Oh Paleez. Even Hume said, “I have never suggested anything so absurd as to say that something can come into being without a cause.”
1. If nothing can come without a cause then what caused God?
2. If God is not caused then why matter cannot be "uncaused"?
3. Hume's lack of imagination (or is this infinite immaterial?), or mine, does not mean anything else than human limits to understanding reality.
Everything that begins to exist has an explanation of its existence either in the necessity of itself (it can't NOT exist) or in an external cause.
No kidding?! Everything has an explanation does not mean everything has a correct explanation.
A universe certainly isn't necessary.
Certainly? Necessary to whom? What does "necessary" mean here? Would you be here without a Universe to sustain you?
And if, in the beginning nothing material existed,
Yeah, right, like we are already convinced of such.
what are you left with? Just be honest with yourself and follow the evidence.
I have followed and it leads nowhere. Just a bunch of speculations out of human ignorance and incapability to imagine a timeless situation (for instance).
ALL of them at some point, require a beginning and a Beginner.
Really? Which physicist proposed the "Beginner" part?
No, you’re not listening. It is not possible to cross the MATERIAL infinite.
Oh! So you can get to today even if you have to give infinite immaterial steps. Now that is logic!
Tell me this, why do you think that it’s possible for matter to be eternal but not Spirit?
I never said anything about the possibilities for "spirit", if such existed, to be "eternal." I said that matter cannot be thought of as "eternal" if time is not absolute.
I know that you don’t believe in Spirit or Supernatural but surely, if matter can exist from eternity, and you do believe that it has, then I see no reason for why the Spirit cannot be eternal.
As I said. I did not even mention spirit being or not eternal.
Now, before you say anything, no, this cannot be turned around because we know from both science and philosophy that the material infinite does not exist.
Again, no, from philosophy we know our reasoning does not work for that. From science that there was a timeless situation. So, what is the problem with mater existing without time?
I thought you atheists actually listened to what science has learned. Oh, of course. That's only if it supports your world-view, not if it contradicts it. That's sad.
Yep, I listen to what science has learned. But I do not listen with the aim of disproving a God or not. For instance, you keep rejecting the timeless thing (I know, I do not like it either, but I do not reject things out of liking, but out of knowledge). I accept that it comports to the data. That's it.
See the difference? If there is a God. Fine. Then we would still have the problem of finding out if we have any accurate description of such a God. I bet you have no doubt about which God is "The" God, if there is at least one and only one (who knows?).
We are not going anywhere Mak. Bottomline: Our ignorance and incompetence at understanding the meaning of the physics of the beginning of the universe, or our limits in logic at those paradoxical points, do not warrant beliefs in Gods, let alone in a particular one. Peace.
G.E.
“There was no "where" other than the singularity?”
Right, and neither was there any little condensed dot of matter. There was nothing. NOTHING!!
==========
1. If nothing can come without a cause then what caused God?
It doesn’t say, “Nothing can BE without a cause. It says Nothing can BEGIN to exist without a cause. God did not begin to exist. He has always existed. Why can’t you get this concept.
2. If God is not caused then why matter cannot be "uncaused"?
Because matter cannot be eternal. The material infinite DOES NOT exist. God is not matter. He is Spirit.
3. Hume's lack of imagination (or is this infinite immaterial?), or mine, does not mean anything else than human limits to understanding reality.
That may be, but without evidence to support your imagination you have no grounds for saying the things that you are saying.
==============
“Everything has an explanation does not mean everything has a correct explanation.”
Of course it does. Something is not going to come from an incorrect explanation
============
What does "necessary" mean here?
It means that it can’t NOT exist. It’s is contingent upon something else for it’s existence.
=============
And if, in the beginning nothing material existed, Yeah, right, like we are already convinced of such.
Well, we can only go by what science tells us.
=============
“Really? Which physicist proposed the "Beginner" part?”
Oh Lord please spare me the stupid. Because - Everything that begins to exist:
a) Has a cause of it’s existence
b) Has an explanation for it existence either in the necessity of it’s being (it can’t NOT exist) or in an external cause.
==========
Oh! So you can get to today even if you have to give infinite immaterial steps.”
That’s correct. If you are referring to Zeno’s paradox, that was dealing with conceptual infinities. Traversing the material infinite is dealing with actual infinities which in fact is impossible to do.
Does that presuppose that all authority is wrong?
No.
If there wasn't anything else, what other alternatives are there?
Argument from lack of imagination.
Are you aware of the creation of ANY information that did not require intelligence?
Argument from lack of imagination, again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information#As_an_influence_which_leads_to_a_transformation
Oh Mak! OK:
Right, and neither was there any little condensed dot of matter. There was nothing. NOTHING!!
So you say.
See how I admit my own ignorance. You categorically say there was NOTHING. I can't just believe. All I can say is that I trust the scientists better than you, your "philosophers", or your understanding of current theories in physics.
It doesn’t say, “Nothing can BE without a cause. It says Nothing can BEGIN to exist without a cause. God did not begin to exist. He has always existed. Why can’t you get this concept.
Then matter IS without a cause other than being that thing that can exist as energy or as matter. I do get your concept. No need to repeat. You are the one who wants special treatment for God, and who wants matter not to just BE.
Because matter cannot be eternal. The material infinite DOES NOT exist. God is not matter. He is Spirit.
I got it already. I said:
1. There is not a claim about matter not being "eternal" in physics. You have been misinformed.
2. "Eternal" does not make sense without time. There "was" no time at the singularity.
Oh Lord please spare me the stupid.
Sorry to have disturbed your peace.
Because - Everything that begins to exist:
a) Has a cause of it’s existence
b) Has an explanation for it existence either in the necessity of it’s being (it can’t NOT exist) or in an external cause.
You said all of this before.
Matter might not have a cause other than being a manifestation of something else that we perceive as matter and energy. That thing cannot be said to be "eternal" because time is not constant. It could be "timeless", but not necessarily "eternal." Those "philosophers" of yours never thought about this possibility for "the material Universe". This is understandable. It is not within out intuition to grasp.
That’s correct. If you are referring to Zeno’s paradox, that was dealing with conceptual infinities. Traversing the material infinite is dealing with actual infinities which in fact is impossible to do.
Now look what you did! Bad Mak, very bad Mak:
IF actual infinities are impossible to traverse. Then the "immaterial" infinite is not actual. (Sorry about this one. I know you did not really mean "actual" in that sense. But I could not resist.)
I would have to say that our lack of imagination, or the mental paradox about impossibility to traverse an actual infinite mean nothing about actual possibilities. I can accept that actual infinities are impossible to traverse. Yet, we are not at the end of any infinite. The question would be if we can be within an actual infinite. I think this is acceptable. We would just be unable to go back to any beginning, and to go forward to any end. It is like being standing on top of number eight. No matter how many times we try to go back, we never reach -infinite. No matter how many times we try to get to +infinite, we cannot reach it either.
You see? Paradoxes do not make good excuses.
I know we are not supposed to be in the middle of an infinite. The Big bang proposes a beginning of the Universe (not of matter and energy, well, yes matter and energy as we know it, but not as whatever their foundation which is what was condensed within that very hot, very dense singularity).
So, I repeat: my argument is: lack of knowledge and appropriate logic to deal with infinities and timelessness do not mean we have to accept your philosopher's conclusions.
G.E.
Perhaps you should read up on Typs 1 to 4 of parallel universes. Again, just another theory which could explain how our universe begun. I'm not going into it, i'm not an expert - i'm just sick of this 'everything coming from nothing' argument that keeps cropping up time and time again.
Yet the creator coming out of nothing? GET OUT OF HERE!!
Mak, guys,
I think I just got it. There is *yet* another misinterpretation of the Big bang thingie.
When creationists say that:
There was NOTHING prior to the singularity.
they might have misquoted and forgot the next sentences, besides changing emphasis and some symbols:
There was nothing "prior" to the singularity, because there is no such thing as "prior" in a timeless state. Just as there is no such thing as "where" except for the singularity itself.
G.E.
Atheism isn't a religion though. I know countless atheists who don't care how the universe was created, what happens after death, or if there is or isn't a god.
cw1925,
Agreed. This is why I insist that "not knowing" does not mean "Thus God".
G.E.
Post a Comment