God debate comment

[Dameedna]

Not sure what any given creationist might mean by “self created.” You’d have to ask one. If by self created a given creationist simply means existing naturally, that makes sense

Actually this argument holds more weight than at first glance. The self-actualizing universe.(for want of a better word). There are some interesting theories out there and they are not unsupported by science. They are, of course… just theories and can be rather interesting.

Perhaps the weirdest aspect of creationism is that it presupposes nihilism. It says there shouldn’t be anything. But then it backtracks and says there should be this god thing. It’s just not a strong argument because at every challenge it breaks its own rules and contradicts itself.

I don’t think that is nihilism. Not sure this word is being used correctly or I may just not understand the last comment.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Dameedna

Yep. It’s really a matter of what you can accept “has alway’s existed”.

Well the BB certainly does not encourage us to believe that the universe always existed. So we are left with one other possibility of what always existed … God. Since in principle you are not opposed to the idea of something that always existed, you should not be in principle opposed to the idea of God, except that the existence of an eternal God might not be scientifically provable. But then, neither is the existence of an infinite universe scientifically provable.

Moreover, the idea of intelligent design, which appears to be behind the universe, is not supported by the idea of a godless universe. Antony Flew, the world’s most famous atheist, finally admitted that the only way to deal with the appearance of intelligent design is suppose a Designer behind the universe.

He has become a theist, if not a Christian.

islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1157962435115&pagename=Zone-English-HealthScience%2FHSELayout

So now we have **two **reasons to believe it is more likely that there is a God than there is not … the BB and Intelligent Design.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The big bang can only point back to a singularity which is simply a tool to derive mathematical forumla from. Sort of like “infinity”. It has no real meaning.

No, it’s not saying it happened “because” anything. It happened. We do not yet know, exactly what happened. As with Newtons beleifs all of it could be scrapped when we gain new knowlege.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Actually this argument holds more weight than at first glance. The self-actualizing universe.(for want of a better word). There are some interesting theories out there and they are not unsupported by science. They are, of course… just theories and can be rather interesting.

please list any of these ‘theories’

 

[warpspeedpetey]

why would anyone attempt to apply physical laws or causality to a non-physical G-d?

if the non-physical, or supernatural, obeyed the laws of physics as does the physical, than the non-physical, would be the physical.

after all, we define the different phases of matter as differing in behavior. not in substance.

all matter is made of the same constituent particles. yet lead behaves in a manner completely differently than nitrogen.

they have different melting, and boiling points, different densities,
different appearences, etc

they are, at the atomic level, the same things, differing only in number and arrangement of particles.

so if the non-physical were to behave in a manner as the physical, at its base it would necessarily be the same thing.

as such it would, like the matter we see, be incapable of self creation.

therefore the non-physical must be something different and not subject to those laws of physics or causality.

how bout that?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Sorry for coming in a bit late in this debate. And i apologise to those posters who have already done a good job of refutation. And finally sorry to “Mega-Therion” for using you as my intellectual experiment, but it is you who must be my first victim. I must say my bit.

The Christian postulates a creator who is conveniently eternal (and thus requires no explanation for his existence).

There is no convenience about it at all. It is a completely valid logical inference based on the evidence.

If time space and matter, began to exist, the only logical explanation that one can employ, is a non-physical, space-less timeless, personal and wholly perfect being. Otherwise you have given no explanation at all.

The only way to refute the argument is by presenting scientific empirical evidence which refutes the Big Bang as showing an absolute beginning. And even then, an actually infinite series of past events seems to me to be a huge whopper of a fantasy, that is employed for the sole purpose of avoiding the obvious. Not only does it seem to me logically absurd in terms of numbers(There is no such thing as an actually infinte number or quantity of something), but and infinite serious of events doesn’t sufficiently explain the universe, certainly not in so far as why anything should exist at all rather then nothing. Only a necessary being can explain it; and a necessary being has to be by its own nature outside of time/eternal (since it is necessary) and it must have various attributes in order to explain itself and give rise to potential beings with qualities and natures. Hence the argument for Gods existence according to Gods attributes.
The infinite serious argument only gives a very shallow answer which avoids an ultimate explanation for why there is a Universe at all. It merely multiplies the problem of existence infinitely hoping that it will keep God out of the picture, rather then ultimately explaining it. This is anathema to good logic. I also think it is anathema to science as well, since the spirit of science works on the principle that there is a reasonable explanation to everything.

Many atheists would suggest that the universe might be eternal (i.e. whatever existed before the Big Bang might have always existed).

Something certainly existed, but it could not have been time space or energy if we are claiming that space and time at some point had a beginning. Such a cause, would have to transcend all aspects of physical reality.

But the real answer is that nobody knows. Those making a definite claim about origins (a god did it!) need to justify that claim with evidence.

Depends on what theory of knowledge you employ. Logically speaking, I would say that the best possible explanation of existence is a space-less, timeless, personal being that is by its very own nature perfect and necessary.

Claims made without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

So we can throw out the concept of an infinite series of temporal events; since you can never infer it logically or prove it empirically from a finite perspective. Cool

A beginning to all temporal events infers a transcendent and perfect being. Therefore, God exist.

 

[crowonsnow]

Yep. It’s really a matter of what you can accept “has alway’s existed”.

Maybe it was just a matter of de-conditioning but it did take some time and thought to come to the realization that the default setting of the universe is to exist, that it doesn’t require abracadabra.

Are there any scientists that subscribe to ex nihilo? How would they reconcile such a belief with the law of conservation of mass?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

crowonsnow

Maybe it was just a matter of de-conditioning but it did take some time and thought to come to the realization that the default setting of the universe is to exist, that it doesn’t require abracadabra.

The default setting of the universe, according to current science, is that at one time it did not exist, and now does. See the BB theory. Moreover, another default setting of the universe strongly suggests Intelligent Design, and this is coming to be increasingly clear to anyone who studies the statistical likelihood that the universe as we know it came into being by mere chance.

So it’s no *abracadabra *to infer that some Higher Power got every going, and for an ultimate purpose that in time has been revealed to us. The use of the term abracadabra is typical of those who want to believe that everything we cannot understand is simply not worth believing in. But the hubris of atheism is that, if there were a God, the atheist should be able to understand the mind of God. Not being able to do so (the finite can never fully grasp the infinite), atheism assumes there is no mind of God to understand, nor is there a divine Magician.

It would be as if anyone who could not understand the theory of relativity would be justified in dismissing it and calling it abracadabra, and could dismiss Einstein by calling him a magician.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Maybe it was just a matter of de-conditioning but it did take some time and thought to come to the realization that the default setting of the universe is to exist, that it doesn’t require abracadabra.

Are there any scientists that subscribe to ex nihilo? How would they reconcile such a belief with the law of conservation of mass?

you can keep claiming the universe is eternal, but there is no scientific evidence of such.

in every scenario that physicists propose, the universe ends.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe

if you have evidence to offer in refutation of the last century or so of physics. please post it

otherwise, we have to assume that you just wish the universe were eternal.

which is not reason enough to believe it

 

[crowonsnow]

The default setting of the universe, according to current science, is that at one time it did not exist, and now does.

Depending on what a person means by exist, create, and other words that relate, there is something to what you say, obviously. But abcadabraists are basically saying a cosmic magician pulled it out of an empty hat. I’m saying that in terms of the law of conservation of mass, there is no such thing as an empty hat and therefore no need for any cosmic magicians.

When you say the BB initiated our universe as we know it in terms of space, time, matter, energy, that is current science. But just like you or I didn’t exist a hundred years ago, the oxygen and carbon and other elements in our bodies didn’t just magically appear. They were here and became us. The matter, energy, xylem or whatever we wish to call it was also here at T=0. That’s all I’m saying.

Are you saying that everything is the result of a magic creation? What would you call such an event other than abracadabra?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Are you saying that everything is the result of a magic creation? What would you call such an event other than abracadabra?

Ah…Your basically saying there’s a magic trick without a magician. How abbracadabra is that!!!

Its best to keep the strawmen out of the conversation.

 

[crowonsnow]

Ah…Your basically saying there’s a magic trick without a magician. How abbracadabra is that!!!

Its best to keep the strawmen out of the conversation.

So you’re saying everything is magic?

 

[MindOverMatter]

They were here and became us.

Hmmmmmm…how wonderfully dreamy.

The matter, energy, xylem or whatever we wish to call it was also here at T=0. That’s all I’m saying.

And nothing before that. So the foundation of reality is nothing.

 

[MindOverMatter]

So you’re saying everything is magic?

I’m saying that everything that begins to exist, changes or moves, needs a cause. It needs a sufficient explanation, not just a point of departure.

There was the first event. Not a static event. Not a timeless event. But an event in a state of change that has no prior naturalistic explanation. There was no prior physical state in order for time or law to arise from. Therefore it’s absolutely reasonable to assume, keeping in tune with the principles of logic and causality that the cause was not in time, space, matter, or energy. The cause is transcendent, and that transcendence is an eternal, necessary, perfect and all powerful being. It is something like a person, since there is no physical mechanism in order for something to occur naturally by accident or otherwise (there being no before and all). Thus a personal will is the best explanation to the universe. Ultimate mind and being is the best explanation for why there is such a thing as laws and states of being.

You can dress it up in the words of magic to make it look flimsy; but that only does superficial damage. It doesn’t change the fact of what a beginning infers. Sorry mate.

 

[MindOverMatter]

He is a simpler way of putting it.

If something is not timeless. It exists potentially. This means that it has the possibility to exist, but doesn’t and cannot exist or change without the existence of prior events or causes.
In order for something to have the potential of becoming, something must sufficiently explain its potential being. It has actuality because something has given it actuality.

Now we need a sufficient cause. But in order to find a sufficient cause, we must find a cause without potency. We must find a necessary being. The only necessary being that has no potency, is one that exists outside of time and is perfect on to its self. In other words it is eternal; the true meaning of the word actually infinite.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

crowonsnow

Are you saying that everything is the result of a magic creation? What would you call such an event other than abracadabra?

“magic creation” is your choice of words, not mine. The word “magic” tends to denote fakery or trickery, which exposes your attitude toward religion.

A better and more accurate word would be the “miracle” of creation, in that creation denotes a Power that exists prior to creation and that brought all of creation into being.

There is no trickster here. The “miracle” is an honest explanation to account for all of creation, given the fact that all of creation at one time did not exist and now does, for which there is abundant evidence in the BB theory.

Current science is all you have to go by, and you especially (as an atheist and propounder of science) ought to be pleading the BB over some future science that you hope will bail atheism out of its current dilemma with the BB.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Current science is all you have to go by, and you especially (as an atheist and propounder of science) ought to be pleading the BB over some future science that you hope will bail atheism out of its current dilemma with the BB.

oooooohhhhh…

 

[crowonsnow]

crowonsnow

Are you saying that everything is the result of a magic creation? What would you call such an event other than abracadabra?

“magic creation” is your choice of words, not mine. The word “magic” tends to denote fakery or trickery, which exposes your attitude toward religion.

A better and more accurate word would be the “miracle” of creation, in that creation denotes a Power that exists prior to creation and that brought all of creation into being.

There is no trickster here. The “miracle” is an honest explanation to account for all of creation, given the fact that all of creation at one time did not exist and now does, for which there is abundant evidence in the BB theory.

Current science is all you have to go by, and you especially (as an atheist and propounder of science) ought to be pleading the BB over some future science that you hope will bail atheism out of its current dilemma with the BB.

Not hardly. I’ve read a lot about the BB, I’m sure as much as you. I’ve never seen it referred to as “miraculous.” And a miracle is just someone dressing up abracadabra anyway.

So you’re saying the law of conservation of mass is out the window? Isn’t all science out the window when things become “miraculous?”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

crowonsnow

I’ve read a lot about the BB, I’m sure as much as you. I’ve never seen it referred to as “miraculous.” And a miracle is just someone dressing up abracadabra anyway.

Whatever you’ve read has nothing to do with whether a miracle rather than a “magic” trick is the proper way to define the relation of God to his Creation. Please stop using the expression abracadabra. You are mocking those of us who honestly believe that the Creation was a majestic act of God’s love by insinuating that it was no more a miracle than a magician in his tuxedo pulling a bunny out of his top hat. Snide remarks of this type only reinforce a suspicion among many theists that atheists don’t usually have good manners because they don’t believe in a God who can teach them.

*So you’re saying the law of conservation of mass is out the window? *

I have no idea what you are talking about. The law of conservation of mass comes **after **the Creation, not before it, and cannot refer to anything that happened before the Big Bang. If you are literate on the subject, you should know that science is unable to explain **anything **that happened in the initial seconds of Creation. All bets are off, therefore, as to whether the creation event should be treated as an act of nature … unless, of course, you have already decided by denying the existence of God, for which you have no scientific proof whatever.

Isn’t all science out the window when things become “miraculous?

Certainly not all science, because no one is saying that all events are miraculous, even though the universe coming into being may be called a miracle (God creating something out of nothing). Science is only God’s way of helping us to understand the physical universe He created. Science does not tell God what He can or cannot do. It’s quite the other way around. God tells nature what to do, and if God chooses to interfere with a natural process, that is God’s prerogative to do, and science’s prerogative to doubt, but not to deny absolutely.

 

[crowonsnow]

Certainly not all science, because no one is saying that all events are miraculous, even though the universe coming into being may be called a miracle (God creating something out of nothing).

So we can continue our discussion I need to know if you hold that the BB is a miracle. You called it a miracle earlier, but it now appears to me that you are backing up.

So is your position that the BB is a miracle?