Dishonest Apologetics

[anEvilAtheist]

Ev, I use to be a fundamentalist Christian who use to get all bent out of shape when people put forward the theory of Big Bang and Evolution. I’ve since converted and I find that the Catholic Church is very open to science in helping discover God. I agree with the Chuch. If you saw my original statement, I said, we discover truth, not create it. And, the creation is important as you suggest so we should spend some time… but, is it worth getting our panties in a knot (not suggesting that anyone is) but, for me its not. I simply know that God created the Heavens and the Earth and that’s fine.

In your study of evolution have you found any holes in the theory? I’m not being an smart(*& here, but you seem well-rounded and I’m sure you have discovered some of the issues with carbon dating, and other interesting things associated with evolution. Don’t ask me to name them, I’m not as smart (informed) as you on this subject… and… I’m sure you’ve already done your home work…

Cya!

• Michael

I haven’t found any evidence that evolution is false. I’ve looked at a number of the criticisms of it, and scientists seem to have really good explanations for all of them. Here’s a link to check out if you want a very basic explanation of why the criticisms of carbon dating aren’t valid: talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#creacrit . Of course no science can be proven with 100% certainty, but I think the evidence points clearly to evolution.

While I haven’t seen any evidence that contradicts evolution, there are a number of different things that we don’t yet know how to explain. One of them is abiogenesis. Even though evolution is only concerned with development after that point, this is certainly an important issue for people like me who think that life probably came about naturally. We have theories for how it could have happened, but we don’t know enough right now to say what did happen. I’d say that the biggest thing we don’t know how to explain is consciousness. We still don’t understand the brain well enough to know how consciousness originates.

I don’t think that these show evolution to be false though. Science is always improving, and just because we don’t currently have all the answers, doesn’t mean that God must be the explanation for what we don’t yet know. But for you, I think that these holes aren’t a problem at all. Since he’s all powerful, if God had wanted to bring about people by evolution, it would have been no trouble at all to set it up so that consciousness would evolve.

 

[twb1621]

First, I want to say that I appreciate you discussing these things with me. You aren’t afraid to challenge my positions, and I think that helps me clarify my own thinking.

I guess I didn’t express myself well. I was not trying to say that just because I presume something will be a waste of time, I don’t do it. I buckle up when I get in a car even though it will almost certainly be a waste of time. So even if it will probably be a waste, you have to take the potential importance of it into account. I grant that in the case of God, it’s an extremely important issue, and I’m not saying that it should be ignored. What I am saying is that even though I am by no means an expert in theology or in the arguments for God’s existence, I have a decent understanding. I do not assume that there is no God, but after spending hundreds of hours studying the arguments made by top theologians, I see no reason to think that the Catholic conception of God is more likely that many of the other conceivable Gods. I think that he may even be less likely than some gods that are conceivable but that no one believes in, for there is not substantial evidence in his favor, and there is some substantial evidence pointing towards his non-existence. Also, I don’t think that the number of people who believe in Christianity is substantial evidence, considering how many people believe other religions just as passionately, and how poor the reasons are for why most people believe. Even if I was convinced that I should dedicate every spare moment towards studying in an attempt to find what, if any, God actually existed, I think I would first have to get up to speed on all other religions and understand them at least as well as I understand Christianity. So in that situation, I would die before I had studied all other religions as well as I have examined Christianity. But I don’t think that spending my entire life doing that would be worthwhile. Since the gods people believe in are only an infinitesimally small portion of all the possible gods, I would almost certainly be wasting the life that I think is almost certainly the only one I will ever have. So I do want to know the truth, but I don’t see how logic should dictate that I spend more time researching Christianity. However, I do find religion fascinating to learn about, so I will continue to read and explore Christianity. But you would have to convince me that there was a significant probability that Christianity was true before it would be rational to sacrifice most of my life to study it in the type of depth that you think it needs to be studied in.

When we research something, it doesn’t take a full study of each entity to determine independent validity. I myself would like to know which religion pertaining to the belief in God you have looked into that through recorded history transcends that of the Hebrew and Christian faith inclusively. You express an unrealistic situation claiming you would have to study every aspect of each religion to determine which the right one is. They weed themselves out well on their own.

I have tried to learn about Christianity as honestly and fairly as I can. Now I understand that you argue that I should learn more, and I will, but I do not think I am logically compelled to in the way you suggest. How am I being selective to accept that your name is Tom but not accept your claim that God exists? I think it would be irrational to be equally willing to accept claims that are likely to be true as claims that are unlikely to be true (from a Bayesian standpoint).

It is selective to take my word that my name is Tom but not my word that God exists. Period. Fact. If I say God exists and although doubtful your desire to know the truth regardless of the out come is there, you would seek the answers just as dedicated as you would any other subject.

No scientific theories can be proven false with 100% certainty, just like with religious theories. However, I think that the problem of evil provides as compelling of evidence to reject Catholic doctrine as the evidence we use to reject the majority of scientific claims. But the reason we see science as reliable is not that it can’t be disproven, it’s that it makes testable predictions and these predictions have been shown to be unbelievably accurate. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of religious predictions have been shown to be inaccurate.

This is a completely false claim and history verifies itself on this. I say you do not want to find out because you fear what changes it will bring. Many theories have been proven to be false and many historic “facts” have been found inaccurate and correct. To say otherwise is nothing but denial.

Not to insult you but your responses reflect excuses and although you have 1001 of them you have not shown any true reasons. I would love to help you if and when you are ready to accept the outcome. That is truthful…

 

[twb1621]

Thanks, I’ll check them out.

I was not saying this claim would be equally reasonable to the claims made by Christianity. Circumstantial evidence is far better than no evidence at all. I was merely saying that there are also some very silly historical claims you couldn’t definitively refute, so this alone is not evidence that something is true.

Agreed, but this is where a person must use common sense. Claims are one thing but centuries of evidence to support its claims through history is another. Has there been any finding to discredit anything of Christianity? What are the odds only the positives would be found over this time?

…So how do you think archeology provides evidence for Christianity and which discoveries do you find most compelling?

Why do you ask such a question knowing the answer. Archeology has provided evidence for the teachings of Christianity by providing physical findings that verifies the existence of the faith in each claimed historic era, dating of events, the religious practices of the faith, the locations of events verified according to records, the consistency of beliefs, the people spoken of and identified as the Apostles and their successors and the methods of their martyrdom, the people or persons who put them to death, the artifacts recovered and the parchments and scrolls recovered, and so on and so on…. Which locations? They are numerous and growing, included the recent finding of what is believed to be the interior location of the first church of Christian practice in Jordan dating around 70 AD. As you would expect from professionals, it is not verified as of yet but inside have been found artifacts as well. Or there are the findings regarding the city of David that many scholars denied existed. So all is being physically proven as time proceeds accept the people whom Jesus performed miracles on. I would hope you wouldn’t need them also when the time comes.
freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1467474/posts

Just like you, I think my current beliefs match the truth. It’s not that I don’t want to know the truth, it’s that I think I’ve already found it. By the way, someone of another religion could use this same argument against you.

If what you have presented as your “reasons” are you comparisons, I vehemently disagree with you. When you look at a locomotive, do you only look at the wheels and say “that is not a locomotive” or do you look at the entire vehicle and recognize it by its combined parts? Can you not admit that the idea of having to alter you entire way of life in order to have a relationship with God and save your sole from eternal hell is troubling to you?

 

[twb1621]

The doctors do not assess the possibility, merely whether they know of any natural explanation. There are occasionally people who recover from even severe illnesses for no known reason, regardless of whether religion was involved. So I think that given the millions of sick people who have been to Lourdes, some of them probably would recover either right before or right after their visit to Lourdes by chance alone…

Your debating is based on your opinions and unfounded conclusions expressing your lack of desire to look deper. I referred to immediate healings and yourevert back to something else to debate the point. Regardless, here are some additional links you may review.

The following links should shed some light on the possibility of theories being proved wrong as well as verification through archeology. This is a sample only.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050222113412.htm

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=2148.0.81.0

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2008/10/new-archaeology-find-threatens.html

http://biblicalstudies.info/top10/schoville.htm

 

[teak421]

I haven’t found any evidence that evolution is false. I’ve looked at a number of the criticisms of it, and scientists seem to have really good explanations for all of them. Here’s a link to check out if you want a very basic explanation of why the criticisms of carbon dating aren’t valid: talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#creacrit . Of course no science can be proven with 100% certainty, but I think the evidence points clearly to evolution.

While I haven’t seen any evidence that contradicts evolution, there are a number of different things that we don’t yet know how to explain. One of them is abiogenesis. Even though evolution is only concerned with development after that point, this is certainly an important issue for people like me who think that life probably came about naturally. We have theories for how it could have happened, but we don’t know enough right now to say what did happen. I’d say that the biggest thing we don’t know how to explain is consciousness. We still don’t understand the brain well enough to know how consciousness originates.

I don’t think that these show evolution to be false though. Science is always improving, and just because we don’t currently have all the answers, doesn’t mean that God must be the explanation for what we don’t yet know. But for you, I think that these holes aren’t a problem at all. Since he’s all powerful, if God had wanted to bring about people by evolution, it would have been no trouble at all to set it up so that consciousness would evolve.

No science can be proven 100%… Really, you sure about that? Science allows us to discover wonderful truths, some of which can be proven 100%. So, do you think in time that evolution will be a 100%er? Up until that point, you will have to have a little faith.

So, if you acknowledge that nothing is 100% (which I disagree with, but, I’ll go with you on this one) then all things in Mr. Evil’s world require faith. So, how am I different than you… us little peps who believe (with faith) in God. I look around and see all sorts of evidence… I see history, I see all cultures no matter where they are and in what time of history that longs to DISCOVER God. Don’t you find that a little odd? I see evidence, you see faith. What’s the difference with you and I, the only difference is our degrees. In your mind, evolution has more weight, therefore you accept it. Did I get that right? So, if more evidence was found about God, would you be consistent and change your view and acknowledge there is a God?

You know my opinion, but do you believe we discover truth, or create it?

• Michael

PS: You seem to be a seeker of truth, I would suggest more inquiry into Christianity and its foundations in history and faith. Review the Bible in length, read early Church fathers… If you have already read the Bible with a microscope, please forgive this suggestion, but if not, I would suggest that you spend more than a glancing read.

PPS: Just curious, were you ever a person of faith? (not in science, because you have faith in science, but I mean in God).

 

[twb1621]

The doctors do not assess the possibility, merely whether they know of any natural explanation. There are occasionally people who recover from even severe illnesses for no known reason, regardless of whether religion was involved. So I think that given the millions of sick people who have been to Lourdes, some of them probably would recover either right before or right after their visit to Lourdes by chance alone.

Sorry but you are not responding to the points of the post. You are distorting the facts of many of the healings including those instantly healed and later supported in order to persist in your own line of thinking. The support for each case weighs greatly against the lack of support for your doubts. You have asked for reasonable support but deny the possibilites without credible reasons. I wish I had a smiley face with a negatively shaking finger…

I agree with you that the media is not perfectly reliable.

No, I said something a bit stronger than that actually.

But the reporting on Mother Theresa came from a number of different news agencies, so I think that somewhat lessens the chance of it being false. But if you don’t think I should accept news stories as probably being true, why do you think I should accept the Catholic Church’s accounts of events that happened?

The report on mother Teresa is of no interest at this point in in the sense that this is far from the only consideration to her Saint hood. More is required and it hasen’t occured yet.
I think you should be as scepticle with the media as you are with your belief in God or Believe in God at least as much as you do the media. At least that would be a start to go forward.

When was the last time a group of Catholics knocked on your door to convert you? they are not known to grab people off the street to convince them of their faith. Any reasonably knowledgeable person knows the Catholic Church is extremely critical of what it accepts because of those such as you which is why you can only doubt without support.

Many things that the media has said have been confirmed by my personal experience, and even if imperfect, it has established a reputation for generally being reliable.

Ok, what experience? I know the track record of the discrepancies based on news reporting of events I was specifically involved in and they were frequent during my profession. I was the investigator of the events and I knew the facts. Can you say you have equivalent experience to refute this?

But the Catholic Church has not built up such a reputation with me. And when it comes to supernatural claims made by the Church, I have no way whatsoever to verify any of them. So by the standards with which you think I should reject the media’s claims about Mother Theresa as dubious, I should also reject the Catholic Church’s claims about miracles as dubious.

You see, it is based on your opinion. And it is not the Catholic Church that makes the claims. If you review the posts and the information offered to you you will see it is the Church behind the investigations and studies.
In regard to any of the appreciations, the Catholic Church does not require the Faithful to believe in those accepted anyway, it is a matter of each person’s choice.

 

[twb1621]

…

Just a few names of Roman historians from that era you might look up information on that through their writings have verified the existance and provided support for some of the events involving the life of Jesus.
Some of the non-Christian historians from those times are Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger and Phlegon among others if you care to research them also.

I hope you see the value in resources you are being offered here by everyone. It would be more than a shame for it all to be discarded without due consideration.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

anEvilAtheist

*I don’t think that these show evolution to be false though. Science is always improving, and just because we don’t currently have all the answers, doesn’t mean that God must be the explanation for what we don’t yet know. *

You might consider whether there is another lesson to be learned from your own words: Just because we cannot answer all the questions raised by religion, it doesn’t follow that religion is false and that we must turn to science to answer the only questions that really matter.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

This is a very skillful sidestep but sidestep nonetheless. We were not talking about time but matter. Matter is something that is counted like apples.

I looked back at the old posts, and we were talking about time. I agree with you that matter can be counted like apples; I just don’t see how it relates to our discussion.

We are not saying it is possible for there to be no God and no universe at the same time. If there is nothing then there is nothing. But how do we know that it is impossible for there to be no universe and no God? Because we know for a fact that we exist and there is a universe. So the question is where did we come from? Did we just pop out from nothing or were caused into be being by something who does not need to be caused?

My point was that there is no a priori reason to expect there to be nothing instead of something. You also left out the options that something has existed for all time, but time is finite, and the option of an eternal universe.

This is not about evidence. This is about logical reasoning. You are mixing your proofs again – quantum physics (physical) and philosophical proofs.

But the Principle of Sufficient Reason has not been philosophically proven, and very few philosophers think it is correct.

But this does not demonstrate that our intuition is wrong. It merely demonstrates that our experience of space and time is inadequate at explaining something. Not that our intuition is wrong. Besides what this proof uses is not intuition but rational argumentation. Just because we know something intuitively does not mean it defies reason.

Saying that our experiences are inadequate is another way of saying it. But we still have some intuitive opinions about things far outside our experience, and my point was that when we have such intuitions we shouldn’t blindly trust them. And I agree completely with you that even if our intuitions are unreliable, this doesn’t mean we can’t use reason (philosophical or scientific) to find what is true.

Yes an infinite of caused-causes is impossible logically. We need to be specific here – an infinite regress of CAUSED-CAUSES that is causes dependent on something else itself.
You have not shown how an infinite number of caused-causes is possible so have not really proven this statement wrong.

No but in the case of causality it does. We cannot go to infinity with a cause that in turn keeps requiring another cause. You have first to show that this kind of causality if possible to infinity.

You are misplacing the burden of proof here. If I were to argue that there must be pots of gold at the end of rainbows because leprechauns exist, the burden would be on me to prove that leprechauns exist. If an atheist was to say that an omnibenevolent God could not exist because he committed many evil acts in the Old Testament, the burden would be on the atheist to provide a standard of morality, show why it is true, and then prove that God violated that standard of morality. Similarly, when Kreeft asserts that there cannot be an infinite chain of causes, the burden is on him to provide evidence for that claim (not merely to rely on our intuitions in areas that we do not have direct experience of).

If the universe is a necessary being (meaning that everything else depends on it and without it nothing could have existed) then it will have been the creator of everything else. Do you believe this to be the case.

In the sense that I am the creator of my lung.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Forward in time perhaps but backwards? When you talk eternal that means no begginning and no end. Where did the first state come from?

I don’t see any reason to think that such a series could not be infinite. In eternal models of the universe there was no first state. Even in some finite models of the universe there was no first state (in these models, time could be represented as a left-open interval en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_(mathematics)#Classification_of_intervals). Also, there are a number of different ontological views of time, and under one of the serious contenders, eternalism (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)), an infinite past would be able to exist just as easily as an infinite future. So in addition to the other problems, Kreeft would need to make an argument for why his view of time is correct.

If the first state of the universe is all there was and caused the others to appear then by reasoning that first state is God.

I know you’re just talking about a creator God, but I still don’t follow your logic.

And another thing, that the first state of the universe gave way to the second does not necessarily mean that the first created the second or caused the second into existence.
What we are talking about here is not a mere change of state but being caused into existence. If the second universe is a morphing of the first, we still have to account for the existence of the first.

I agree. But I see no reason that one state couldn’t cause another state which would then cause the first state. Perhaps it would be helpful if you gave me your definition of the word ‘cause’.

But where did the unvierse come from? Was the universe always there? How did it come into being? Is there some property in the unvierse that indicates it could have caused every other thing into existence.

I don’t know. I do not claim to know.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

We may not be able to “break-it” up into a series of causes but the principle remain. The Frist cause argument **does not **reast on the assumption that we can **“neatly break”**everything up into a series of causes. The first cause argument rests on the fact that causality in nature exists but that causation has to stop somewhere. We may not be able to break it down precisely to the list minute but the priinciple is there.

Fair enough. Now someone just needs to prove that “causality in nature exists but that causation has to stop somewhere.”

 

[anEvilAtheist]

He also does nothing to show that laws such as causation, even if they applied in everyday life, would apply to a situation in which there is no time, space, matter, and energy. We have no basis for making definitive conclusions about what natural laws would hold in a state of absolute nothingness.

I don’t really get what you’re saying is wrong with those criticisms I gave. Would it be possible to further explain what you were getting at?

Yes, he did by simple reasoning. If a book was not with a because he has to get it from b, for the book to actually exist there must be an end in the line somewhere who has the book. Otherwise the book is just an illusion. Be we know the universe and us are not mere illusions so therefore Someone must have caused us into existence.

Like my earlier example of God and a square circle, he would first have to establish the appropriateness of his analogy. In this case, it is inappropriate. If it works, all it shows is that for any task that has a beginning, an infinite series of actions cannot ever be completed. However, if the universe has no beginning, this would still hold true.

There may be other things which do prove the possibility of an infinite regress, and even if there isn’t, an inability to prove that something could exist doesn’t prove that it can’t.

And how is an infinite series of caused-causes possible? How does that lead to anything being in existence without there being the necessary Being that does not need to be caused intot existence.?

I’d need to know exactly how you define these terms in order to give a detailed answer. But the main point is that he is trying to prove that there must have been a first cause and does not provide a valid argument.

But what has been shown by this proof is not the possibility of something existing but the NECESSITY of something existing or else nothing exists.

Except his “proof” does not work.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

But the analogy does not apply. Unlike the people who have only started wring 200 years ago, we are not basing our conclusions on man’s written account. True, there may or may not have been something else before the Big Bang but we do not know that for a fact. The only thing that can be supported at this stage by observable data is that the universe came into being around 14 billions years ago give or if you want to be conservative about 100 trillion years ago.

There is no data to indicate the rate of expansion of the universe before Planck time. Until we know which theory of quantum gravity is correct, we cannot know whether or not the universe was always expanding before Planck time. Even the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, which is often used as evidence that the universe had a beginning merely assumes that the universe kept expanding. There are theories in which the universe is finite and theories in which it is infinite. Until we see some evidence which points toward one theory or another, I don’t think we should make assumptions merely based on personal preference.

So regardless of whether it was an actual atom or not, it began somewhere. Let us say it was a compressed sort of universe that exploded with the Big Bang. At this stage the only theory that we can reasonably support with data is to the “primeval atom/compressed universe” stage. Beyond that we just do not know. That is all I am getting at. When you start positing another universe before that, you go into speculation which there is no supporting data.

Based on our current evidence, saying that the universe had a beginning is just as speculative as saying it did not.

I think we have already defined that by universe we mean the natural world. When we say eternal, it means it has not beginning and has no end. So you are saying that there are theories that the natural world transcends time?

I wouldn’t say transcend because that usually means rising above time’s limits. I would say that the universe could have been eternal.

I do not know what you are asking for. There are a number of different theories because we don’t yet have the data necessary to rule out any of them. You have picked one which has no data to support it and say that because none of the others have data to support them, yours must be correct. Data is not used to establish the possibility of theories; it is used to establish which are true. Based on the data we have, we build theories that are consistent with the data. Then when new data come in, we figure out which of these theories is true.

To my knowledge we currently don’t have data to support any of the popular theories of what happened before Planck time. Since there is no evidence to support it, it doesn’t make sense for everyone to assume that the model you like is correct. I think we should consider all theories until we get more data with which to rule some of the theories out.

 

[djeter]

This is a story of how I was led astray by Luke Timothy Johnson:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/06/09/trials-of-heresy-led-astray-by-luke-timothy-johnson/

DJ

 

[anEvilAtheist]

But if knowing God is as incredible as the Church teaches, and eternal happiness is possible, I would want it.

I didn’t mean anything specific, just that I’ve heard people say how being with God, in heaven and possibly on Earth, exceeds the amount of happiness we can get from anything else

Reply to this only if you have time. There’s only one you and there are a few of us firing questions at you.

Also, I must say that I truly admire your capacity to reply to our posts.

I started a thread and I could not reply to all of them let alone read all of them so replied at random and some members complained that their posts are not being read. So kudos on that score.

Thanks for noticing. Yeah, it can definitely be hard keeping up. I had no idea this thread would get this kind of response.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

That is quite nice.

But it just does not make sense to me. If you are an atheist as you claim, then wouldn’t that be rather irrational to pray to someone you completely do not believe in? That would be like me praying to Buddha.

If you don’t believe He exists at all why pray?

Hey, don’t get me wrong I am happy that you prayed that if He exists he would make sure that her family would get through everything okay.

I just don’t get it because I have an atheist friend and that would be the last thing he would do.

The only way it makes sense to me is if you are not sure that He does not exist, which make you agnostic not atheist.

You make a good point. I don’t normally pray because I think the likelihood of it working is so low. But when someone I know asks me to do a favor for them and it wouldn’t cost me much, I usually do it. I don’t do a cost benefit analysis for every little action I take and weigh the odds of that one prayer working versus the time costs.

Also, I’m not an atheist in the sense that I think a god could not possibly exist. I’m an agnostic atheist in the sense that I don’t claim to know whether a god exist, but I lack a belief in one. I don’t think some kind of first cause is necessarily unlikely (I have no idea how to assign odds to that). But I think a personal God that answers prayers is much less likely.

 

[teak421]

You make a good point. I don’t normally pray because I think the likelihood of it working is so low. But when someone I know asks me to do a favor for them and it wouldn’t cost me much, I usually do it. I don’t do a cost benefit analysis for every little action I take and weigh the odds of that one prayer working versus the time costs.

Also, I’m not an atheist in the sense that I think a god could not possibly exist. I’m an agnostic atheist in the sense that I don’t claim to know whether a god exist, but I lack a belief in one. I don’t think some kind of first cause is necessarily unlikely (I have no idea how to assign odds to that). But I think a personal God that answers prayers is much less likely.

So, you think its NOT possible for God to exist? Period. End of story? Bah! You are not the seeker of truth that I thought you were. (not that you care what I think!).

EDITED! I DIDN"T READ EVILS REMARK! Sorry… Man, I’m one of those email skimmers!

• Michael

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Does it really? What would be the something that comes from nothing in quantum phsyics.

I certainly don’t claim to be an expert in quantum physics, but according to what I’ve read, it seems that virtual particles spring uncaused into and out of existence (if you want more information, you can check out en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_fluctuations or scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-virtual-particles-rea). Now they do appear in space and time, so you could argue that they don’t appear out of complete nothingness, but my point is just that if people experienced dogs springing into existence uncaused in our everyday lives, our intuitions would not be so strongly against the possibility of the universe popping into existence.

But the point is not that a particle cannot appear without a universe but that a particles cannot appear without a Creator. Two different things.

True. But I don’t see why it wouldn’t be possible that this is possible without both.

The operative word is IMAGINE. Dogs don’t pop into and out of existence for no apparent reason. No dog has and I am pretty certain no dog will.

Yes, but objects similar in size to the early universe do.

But did a particle pop into existence. Do we have data to support that it popped into existence? How did something just pop into existence. Nothing and then something. How?

No we certainly don’t. It’s just one theory. It’s actually not a theory I favor, but I won’t reject it as impossible until I see a reason why I should.

I don’t. I have not studied universes at all. I am just questioning your line of thinking.

Fair enough.

I’ve asked you this before and you have not shown any support for why you believe this to be so.

Because without any evidence for a finite universe or for an eternal universe, I don’t think I should rule out either. Another reason is that there are fairly well defined theories for how the universe could have been infinitely old (arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.2730v2.pdf is an example of one such theory).

But if the universe is eternal then it would be the cause of all things. Causality exists in this world. That which is eternal and therefore does not need anything else for it to exist would therefore be the cause of of every other existence. You’re analogy of your lung does not work because your lung is not separate being to you. The only causality evident there is to function not being.

We are not a separate being to the universe. We are part of it, much like my lung is part of me. You don’t provide any evidence that the universe would have had to be the cause.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Actually no, you did question the Big Bang which is why we ended up with this discussion. So if the Big Bang is fully accepted, then the scientific world accepts that the universe has a beginning. The whole point of this is tha anything before the Big Bang is conjecture. And that is why I said, we cannot rely on that because that is conjecture so an eternal universe is conjecture.

No, as I said before, the Big Bang theory only addresses what happened after Planck time. However, it is commonly presented to the public as if it went back to a singularity. Some physicists believe that it did, but others believe that the universe has been eternal.

Is this pretty good idea before Planck time data or conjecture once again. “Pretty good idea” does not sound like data to me.

I said we have a pretty good idea there was something before Planck time because our knowledge is limited in that we cannot receive any light from this period to see exactly what it was like, so we have no “data” in that sense. We instead have to come up with theories based on what is consistent with the laws of physics. As we discover more about physics, we have been able to narrow down the possibilities. I say we have a pretty good idea, because it would be far harder to theoretically explain the universe coming into existence at Planck time itself.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

What makes you think it is eternal.

I don’t. I don’t know.

And you have not given any proof of it’s possiblity being eternal. Either the universe is eternal (which you have not given any reasonable proof for) or else the universe is not eternal In which case it 1) popped out from nothing which is an impossibility 2) created by Someone that is eternal.

You have not given any proof of the possibility of it being temporally finite. Since we have no data for this period, I would need evidence to rule a theory out, not to consider it. You claim that things are impossible but do not back up your claims.

Exactly. So the universe could not possibly pop out from nothiing unless of course it was eternal which there is absolutely no proof for.

No, you misinterpreted my comments.

Okay stop right there. Do I have to scream this out till I am blue in the face? As far as our discussion is concerned I am speaking of Creator God. Please, please, please, please, get that right.

How is it wrong to clarify my definition of atheist? We both agree that in the context of this discussion we are talking about a creator God. But I don’t change what I label myself merely because of what I’m discussing at the time.

So therefore you are an agnostic.

Yes, in addition to being an atheist, I am an agnostic. One deals with belief and the other deals with knowledge.

Because without a Creator God, the orderly universe we know was produced by chance. It will require more faith to believe that a dog somehow typed this post than that an intelligient being was hammering at the keyboard. The orderliness and complexity of the whole natural world does not support chance.

I do not agree with your claims and I do not think your analogy is relevant.

Personally speaking, the more I learn about science the more dumbstruck I am at how wonderfully God has made me. I watched the documentary called Human Body and I was in tears. What wonderful incredible creatures we are. And that is just us. Actually, I was marvelling at that time at just the mechanism of the ear. But then of course that is just me. And before you pounce on it, this last paragraph is NOT apologetics.

Haha, I know it’s not. The universe is an amazing thing. I just don’t see a reason why it must have been created by a supernatural being.