P
PRmerger
Guest
Excellent.
Then you might want to remove the “but only for the purposes of a discussion”.
You should entertain the idea, for this very important reason: it may be true.
The burden of proof is on believers to prove God exists (according to atheist philosphers)
- Status
Then you might want to remove the “but only for the purposes of a discussion”.
You should entertain the idea, for this very important reason: it may be true.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
How would you convince someone of that?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Then you are a science denier?
For science does propose that the universe began to exist.…something, came from…nothing?
P
PRmerger
Guest
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Some scientists hold to the cyclical theory of the universe, which involves and endless sequence of Big Bangs and Big crunches. Naive ideas about thermodynamics are subverted by gravitational forces.
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
Does not follow. It only must exist outside THIS space, time, matter energy. We only perceive 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension(s), but there is no reason to assume that we cannot reside in a sub-space of a much larger universe, with more spatial and temporal dimensions. Moreover, the creator may have ceased to exist right after the act of creation took place.
Only assumed to have created this subset of the universe. Our universe (3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension) could be the result of some 5 dimensional scientist’s experiment, or even the result of some botched experiment (sitting in the bottom of his trash can). Or just the result of a kid playing with his new toy. Cannot be ruled out logically.
No, the universe can simply exist. You assume that the creator “simply” exists, needs no external reason for his existence.
That is trivial, and irrelevant. But the realm where the creator dwells is closed to us. By the way, you can safely drop the capitalized “Creator” and stick with a lower case one.
Just because something might be true is not a good reason to take it seriously. It might be true that we are all “brains in vats”, or it might be true that the Moon is really make of cheese, but such hypotheses are entertained for amusement only as it was written on the old pinball machines.
Not true. Science cannot penetrate the singularity, and does not pretend otherwise. Science only accepts that the current state of the universe started with the singularity. You need to learn what science really says, not what you think it says.
Answered above. Nothing follows from the hypothetical creator, except that it is not logically contradictory.
N
neonblue
Guest
That was Ghandi’s belief.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
On what basis would someone be convinced that this is true?
N
neonblue
Guest
I’m not going to engage in any comments about it , look up the “Beliefs of Ghandi”.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Or the universe came from “something” that defies a purely rational concept of “something.”
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Most scientists long ago abandoned this hypothesis (not even a theory).
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
The universe cannot simply exist. There is no scientific evidence that it simply exists, but a great deal of evidence that it was created.
As to using caps for Creator, are you setting yourself up as the thought police?
No self respecting person of faith would think of referring to the Creator in lower caps.
You are a non-Catholic guest at Catholic Answers and you don’t get to tell us how safe we are in using lower caps when referring to our Creator.
M
Mort_Alz
Guest
If I take your words strictly, then I don’t disagree. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the Virgin Birth is true and a true miracle. If we somehow had the ability to scientifically examine the Virgin Birth, we would not be able to identify it as miraculous strictly through studying the empirical evidence. All we would see is nature running its regular course in the development of a fetus. The only mystery would be “From where did the male contribution of DNA come?” Empirical evidence could not prove that it came from a supernatural source (since supernature, by definition, cannot be reached from below). It could only see that at one moment it wasn’t there and the next it was. If the scientist examining this evidence had a philosophy similar to most modern atheists, he would not assume a miraculous source from this data, only that he did not yet discover the physical cause of this singularly unusual conception of a fertilized human egg. This woukd be a philosophical assumption no more “rational” than one interpreting the event to be a supernatural one. There’s no solid reason to exclude the supernatural from possible explanations. There are a few reasons to leave it included:
I’m sure you’ve heard the illustration of the 3D sphere intersecting a 2D world and a 2D character interacting with the sphere but being totally unable to imagine or understand the sphere’s 3-dimensionality despite the sphere’s attempts to explain it. The 2D character can’t help, then, but to conclude that a 3rd dimension does not exist since the limits of science in his 2D world cannot encompass the 3-dimensional. He therefore concludes, incorrectly, that there is no such thing as a 3rd dimension. All he is capable of seeing is a curve in his world that first grows larger, peaks, and then shrinks again until it is no longer there.
Which says nothing about whether or not there exists the supernatural. An entire group of witnesses can conclude that they did not see person X at location Y where they all were gathered at time Z. It doesn’t follow from this that person X wasn’t there at that time, just that he wasn’t seen. Heck, it’s possible that there was no possible way for him to be seen at all. Maybe all the witnesses were blind, or perhaps person X was concealed in a way that made it impossible for him to be seen. It is a philosophical assumption to say that the supernatural does not exist because empirical evidence has not proven it. It is a philosophical assumption to think that if the supernatural exists, it must be able to be proven through empirical evidence if it ever intersects with the physical world. I like to think I’ve just demonstrated ways in which this assumption can be false.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Then just take it back one step and the Creator who made any universe MUST be eternal.
Evidence for this, please.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Never until modern times did science ever claim that its methodology was supreme and that knowledge of the supernatural could not be had until it was weighed, dissected, and catalogued. This is an arrogance that even Isaac Newton, perhaps the most arrogant of scientists, would have scorned. Indeed, Newton took it as a given that supernatural knowledge could be obtained through the Scriptures, as we are learning to this day.
Book of Genesis, 1000 B.C. : “Let there be light.”
Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.
“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
It certainly makes the assumption of the supernatural superfluous and void.
To be more precise, it makes the assumption of the supernatural irrelevant.
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
I wonder what do you mean by the word “eternal”. The word can have several meanings.
No need. I did not present a scientific argument, it is just a thought experiment, and in thought experiments everything is permitted, except logical contradictions.Evidence for this, please.
M
Mort_Alz
Guest
If you really think that; that the inability of the supernatural to be proven by empirical evidence renders it irrelevant, then you are not considering my point carefully enough.
We (even you) believe countless things without empirical evidence. It must, therefore, not be as crucial for determining fact from fiction as many put it up to be.
Could you admit that it could be possible for God’s real existence to be discovered through philosophy? If he does exist? Could the 2D character deduce the existence of a 3rd dimension correctly even though he could never empirically test for it?
M
Mort_Alz
Guest
Not if it can be reliably deduced philosophically or by another means; (reliably as anything else we know from methods other than empirical testing, [and there is **a lot we know without being able to empirically test it.])
That obviously isn’t true since there is plenty of relevant knowledge we hold without being able to empirically test it. In fact, there is a lot we know that cannot EVER be empirically tested.
- Status