The First Cause

Originally posted by jaywill
Scientists expect that the universe will one day fizzle out.
If so, it will be cold and dark and the energy is dissipated.
That's my layman's understanding. Do you challenge that?

Yes I do.
For a start dissipated energy is not the same thing as "used up" energy.
May I remind you that you said:
"And we know that there is a finite amount of energy in the universe and it is not all used up."

I have not yet seen any solid theory that shows that the universe will expand forever, I thought it was in hypothesis stage.

I think it is as simple as a flashlight being left on all night. The battery runs down and the light gets dimmer and dimmer. Eventually it goes OUT.
So all this light is leaving the universe is it?

You couldn't name me another book that covers so many vital and basic truths about human life and creation with so few words as the first few chapters of Genesis.
The origin of space and time.
.......
The origin of the spread of nations over the globe.

Maybe not that exact list in that order but yes there are plenty of other creation stories.
And in my opinion they are not "vital and basic truths" but "lies and fairytales."

Other sacred books like it do not exactly compare in scope and economy to the Holy Bible, especially early Genesis.
And all Muslims tell me how much better than the Bible the Qu'ran is. So what? Who wants a book that "exactly compares in scope and economy" to the rubbish in the Bible? Can you find a book that compares in scope and economy to The Lord of the Rings? Does that make the Lord or the Rings a trustworthy source of historical information?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes I do.
For a start dissipated energy is not the same thing as "used up" energy.
May I remind you that you said:
[b]"And we know that there is a finite amount of energy in the universe and it is not all used up."

I have not yet seen any solid theory that shows that the universe will expand forever, I thought it was in hypothesis stage.

[ ...[text shortened]... Does that make the Lord or the Rings a trustworthy source of historical information?[/b]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Maybe not that exact list in that order but yes there are plenty of other creation stories.
And in my opinion they are not "vital and basic truths" but "lies and fairytales."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The lies and fairy tales are from deluded folks like yourself who teach us that humans are an accident.

But give me your scientific formula that proves conclusively that there is no God and the discussion is over in your favor.

If not, you trust your talking heads and I'll trust mine.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes I do.
For a start dissipated energy is not the same thing as "used up" energy.
May I remind you that you said:
[b]"And we know that there is a finite amount of energy in the universe and it is not all used up."

I have not yet seen any solid theory that shows that the universe will expand forever, I thought it was in hypothesis stage.

[ ...[text shortened]... Does that make the Lord or the Rings a trustworthy source of historical information?[/b]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So all this light is leaving the universe is it?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Never heard of a black hole?

Go in there and pull the light out for us.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes I do.
For a start dissipated energy is not the same thing as "used up" energy.
May I remind you that you said:
[b]"And we know that there is a finite amount of energy in the universe and it is not all used up."

I have not yet seen any solid theory that shows that the universe will expand forever, I thought it was in hypothesis stage.

[ Does that make the Lord or the Rings a trustworthy source of historical information?[/b]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So what? Who wants a book that "exactly compares in scope and economy" to the rubbish in the Bible? Can you find a book that compares in scope and economy to The Lord of the Rings? Does that make the Lord or the Rings a trustworthy source of historical information?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And Einstien's Theory of General Relativity is roughly in the same class as The Cat In The Hat by Dr. Suess. I mean people say both are good books. So what's the difference anyway?

See? I can make drunken befuddled comparisons too.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So all this light is leaving the universe is it?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Never heard of a black hole?

Go in there and pull the light out for us.[/b]

The light energy is just being converted to another form. It isn't being destroyed.

Originally posted by jaywill
The lies and fairy tales are from deluded folks like yourself who teach us that humans are an accident.

But give me your scientific formula that proves conclusively that there is no God and the discussion is over in your favor.

If not, you trust your talking heads and I'll trust mine.

The lies and fairy tales are from deluded folks like yourself who teach us that humans are an accident.

Ahh, now we get down to it. It's narcissism. Don't tell me, you are too important to be an "accident"?


But give me your scientific formula that proves conclusively that there is no God and the discussion is over in your favor.

Science cannot prove that. Exactly in the same way you cannot prove God's existence. For me, there is enough evidence against God's supposed attributes (i.e. suffering and omnibenevolence) to make me believe there is no God, although there can be no definitive proof either way.

If not, you trust your talking heads and I'll trust mine.

Okay, I'll trust the evidence and logic, and you trust whatever fairy tale it is you want.

Originally posted by jaywill
And Einstien's Theory of General Relativity is roughly in the same class as The Cat In The Hat by Dr. Suess. I mean people say [b]both are good books. So what's the difference anyway?[/b]

Evidence. It ALWAYS comes back to evidence with scientists. If you can give us definitive proof of God's existence, we'll believe.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b] The lies and fairy tales are from deluded folks like yourself who teach us that humans are an accident.

Ahh, now we get down to it. It's narcissism. Don't tell me, you are too important to be an "accident"?


But give me your scientific formula that proves conclusively that there is no God and the discussion is over in your favor.[/b ...[text shortened]... ay, I'll trust the evidence and logic, and you trust whatever fairy tale it is you want.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ahh, now we get down to it. It's narcissism. Don't tell me, you are too important to be an "accident"?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Man is too important to be an accident. Afterall God became a man in Christ Jesus.

Sorry, if you've been brainwashed otherwise.

Originally posted by jaywill
Man is too important to be an accident.

Too important to whom?!

Originally posted by jaywill
Prove then that an infinite number of days DOES have an end.

Asserting that an infinite duration cannot have an end is like asserting that an infinite set of numbers cannot have a highest member, to which there is the simple counterexample of the set of all negative real numbers.

Anyway, I don't think anyone here believes the universe to be eternal. So lets consider the argument you stated:

1) Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
2) The universe had a beginning.
3) Therefore the universe has a cause.

When we are talking about the beginning of the universe premise #1 is not at all obvious and seems like begging the question. Why is it better than "everything has a cause?" Don't you intuitively expect that even an eternal entity should have a cause, instead of just arbitrarily existing? If you say that yes, it should, but the regression of causes has to stop somewhere, why should it stop at God? Isn't that arbitrary?

Premise #2 could be attacked with twhitehead's hypothetical universe in which time is represented by the set of positive real numbers, so that the universe doesn't really have a beginning, because t=0 has been neatly knocked out of the picture.

Originally posted by jaywill
Never heard of a [b]black hole?

Go in there and pull the light out for us.[/b]

Is the inside of a black hole outside the universe?
Doesn't light entering a black hole directly contradiction your claim that all energy will be dissipated?

Originally posted by GregM
Asserting that an infinite duration cannot have an end is like asserting that an infinite set of numbers cannot have a highest member, to which there is the simple counterexample of the set of all negative real numbers.

Anyway, I don't think anyone here believes the universe to be eternal. So lets consider the argument you stated:

1) Everything that has ...[text shortened]... doesn't really have a beginning, because t=0 has been neatly knocked out of the picture.

Don't you intuitively expect that even an eternal entity should have a cause, instead of just arbitrarily existing? GREG

He shouldn't expect an eternal entity to have a cause nearly as much as an entity with a beginning. If something caused God to come into existence then God would not be eternal would he. Things with beginnings are very suggestive of being an event brought about by causation. The universe satisfies this criteria which although doesn't prove that it is caused just makes it look like it might be. Even if I were an atheist I would find it hard to believe the universe was uncaused.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ahh, now we get down to it. It's narcissism. Don't tell me, you are too important to be an "accident"?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Man is too important to be an accident. Afterall God became a man in Christ Jesus.

Sorry, if you've been brainwashed otherwise.[/b]

Ah, I love the smell of narcissism in the morning. That's all it boils down to. You love yourself too much to accept that the universe could have been otherwise. Pathetic.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Don't you intuitively expect that even an eternal entity should have a cause, instead of just arbitrarily existing? GREG

He shouldn't expect an eternal entity to have a cause nearly as much as an entity with a beginning. If something caused God to come into existence then God would not be eternal would he. Things with beginnings are very suggestive ...[text shortened]... ight be. Even if I were an atheist I would find it hard to believe the universe was uncaused.

So, why can the universe not be eternal, having existed for all time, yet time be finite?


The answer, I fear, will be that you don't like it, rather than anything of substance.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Ah, I love the smell of narcissism in the morning. That's all it boils down to. You love yourself too much to accept that the universe could have been otherwise. Pathetic.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ah, I love the smell of narcissism in the morning. That's all it boils down to. You love yourself too much to accept that the universe could have been otherwise. Pathetic.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sure, I love myself. I am worst than you could ever imagine.
I'm really a self loving and self centered sinner saved by Grace.

I know where I can find salvation, in Christ.

He's absolute for the Father's will. And He has become my righteousness before God.

And I am still sorry that your're brain washed, even MORE self loving, and have put your trust in Darwin's gospel of dirt.