How could the universe and life come into existence without God? How could life evolve without God?

[Noose001]

What do you think is a reasonable amount of evidence it would take a non believer to have to establish this? Stories from a 2000 year old book? Feeling you get when you talk to Him (while admitting that you don’t actually hear Him talk back)? Do you understand how insufficient the evidence is…unless you already believe it?

Yeaah, i feel your pain and can relate.

If someone told you that they have a nuclear weapon in their garage, you can either choose to believe or not. What you choose is actually inconsequential, it will not change what is in the garage but until you actually prove that it is a cat and not a nuclear weapon, you are applying faith either way and in this case, your main reason to believe that there is a cat and not a nuclear weapon is because of the pain you associate with the nuclear weapon.

But my point is; faith or belief should not be blind, i know some have blind faith but reason has to accompany faith. You can have reasons to believe that actually there’s a nuclear weapon in the garage.

 

[Noose001]

Can you hear the blood pumping in your ears?

No, why?! In a silent room i will probably.

 

[rossum]

No, why?! In a silent room i will probably.

Then, for you, there is never silence.

 

[Elf01]

So, you have sea-parted and not-sea parted simultaneously. Given such an obvious contradiction and statement whatsoever can be proved. For example, I could prove that Ivanka Trump is actually a penguin in disguise. Given a logical contradiction any nonsensical statement can be shown true.

The sea cannot both be parted and non-parted “at once”.

Schrödinger's cat - Wikipedia

That may not be as far fetched as it seems.

 

[Noose001]

Then, for you, there is never silence.

There was before i was born and there will be when i die.

 

[rossum]

There was before i was born and there will be when i die.

How do you know that? Were you there? Will you be there?

 

[Noose001]

How do you know that?

Understanding, better than the idea of reincarnation.

Were you there?

Yes i was

Will you be there?

Yes i will

 

[o_mlly]

Then you have a huge logical problem. The sea is simultaneously parted and not parted. Adam is simultaneously alive and dead. We have A and not-A simultaneously. You have a very big logical problem.

No, one only perceives a logical problem when attempting to explain eternity from a perspective of and use of a time-bound vocabulary. As to A and not-A being contradictions, have you not expressed that your philosophy permits such a contradiction?

The subset cannot define its parent set. Neither can time explain eternity.

 

[rossum]

No, one only perceives a logical problem when attempting to explain eternity from a perspective of and use of a time-bound vocabulary.

All human languages are “time-bound” because they have a past tense, a present tense and a future tense. That includes English.

So, I obviously need to make my point in a non-time bound language, one that is, of necessity, not English:

Suerleev weh b’en wjanaca rda eall throd s mepo bjer koc. Dpi 'ang gevahil vforeci renenifa bsabaneo boojrwujiu; cu ree yull. Phasd weveritu yam seshyi y lbra fpuaquvae cemecav tijale, ielirli asem dowe wefan hotinth.

I await your non-time bound reply, that you composed three weeks ago.

 

[o_mlly]

All human languages are “time-bound” because they have a past tense, a present tense and a future tense. That includes English.

I await your non-time bound reply, that you composed three weeks ago.

Only need one word: Eternity.

 

[rossum]

Only need one word: Eternity.

That is a word, not an argument.

 

[o_mlly]

That is a word, not an argument.

Yes, in one word, it refutes your claim that all language is time-bound.

 

[rossum]

Yes, in one word, it refutes your claim that all language is time-bound.

That word did not exist 2,000 years ago. The English language did not then exist either. Any word in any human language is necessarily time-bound.

Here is some “English” from the tenth century:

Fæder ure, ðu ðe eart on heofonum,
Si ðin nama gehalgod.
Tobecume ðin rice,
Gewurde ðin willa on eorþan,
swa swa on heofonum.
Urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg.
And forgyf us ure gyltas,
swa swa we forgyfaþ urum gyltendum.
And ne gelæd ðu us on costnunge,
ac alys us of yfele.
Soþlice.

The letter ð (eth) is a voiced th in modern English; þ (thorn) is an unvoiced th.

Your use of a human language refuted your argument.

 

[o_mlly]

That word did not exist 2,000 years ago.

Yes, it did. αιωνιότητα.

The important point is the concept of eternity is within the grasp of the human mind. The various symbols that evidence the idea are not as important.

 

[rossum]

Yes, it did. αιωνιότητα.

That is Greek, not English. The English word, the one that you used did not then exist. All human languages are impermanent, and so fail your test of not being “time bound”.

 

[o_mlly]

That is Greek, not English. The English word, the one that you used did not then exist. All human languages are impermanent, and so fail your test of not being “time bound”.

Then substitute the Greek for the English word. What is your point? It appears the COVID-19 syndrome maybe affecting you. How do you define “eternity”?

 

[rossum]

Then substitute the Greek for the English word.

Substituting one “time bound” word for a different “time bound” word does not meet the criterion you set.

My point is that your requirement above:

No, one only perceives a logical problem when attempting to explain eternity from a perspective of and use of a time-bound vocabulary.

… that we not use a “time-bound vocabulary” is impossible to meet. All human languages are “time-bound”.

We still have the problem that, according to you, God is simultaneously parting and not-parting the sea. This is a general problem with eternal and unchanging entities; they cannot change so they are unable to do anything different.

 

[o_mlly]

God is simultaneously parting and not-parting the sea

God is eternally parting the sea.

 

[rossum]

God is eternally parting the sea.

Obviously not. We can observe the sea today and it is not parted. Because it is not parted today then it cannot be parted eternally because it is not parted for all time. There is a time – today – when the sea is not parted. There was a time in the past – before Moses – when it was not parted. It is very obvious that the sea is not eternally parted. It is just like all other seas everywhere; it changes through time.

At some points in time the parting is active; at other points in time the parting is inactive. The parting is not, and cannot be, eternal.

 

[o_mlly]

At some points in time the parting is active; at other points in time the parting is inactive. The parting is not, and cannot be, eternal.

The reality of eternity is not obvious to those who limit their understanding of reality to only their experience of reality, i.e., sequentially. What is obvious is that while you have never experienced anything coincidental to another but things do occur coincidentally. Do you also deny the coincidence?