Originally posted by sonshipYou have said a number of different things several of which I have disputed.
I said if anything exists something must have existed always, eternally.
You're asserting that that is not true.
Yes, with certain qualifications about the definitions of the words involved.
But I believe there must be an uncreated source of all things deriving their existence from other sources.
Which is nothing more than a religious belief. However you stated it as if it followed logically. It doesn't.
If you follow the chain back you must arrive at something which did not derive existence from something prior.
Again, a religious belief or a false dichotomy. There are other possibilities you have not ruled out.
What options I am looking for you to explain are not what you WANT to explain, but what I need you to explain.
Very funny.
That is an infinite regress of things all deriving their existence from pre-existing sources eternally. That is the alternative.
So you invent an alternative (that in itself demonstrates your dichotomy to be false) then demand that I support your invention? Sorry, but I don't particularly care for supporting strawmans. You invented it, you support it, or not, the choice is yours.
I expect you to answer that and not spend so much energy and time telling me that that is not what I asked before.
I am fairly sure you didn't ask it before. I am also certain that I made no such claim so you should not expect me to answer it. Now I expect you to tell us why the sky is blue or you have lost the debate! (see how stupid your strawman demand looks).
You tried the same game in the soul thread where you kept on over and over demanding that I demonstrate something you invented and stubbornly ignoring my repeated explanations that I never made any such claim.
This is what I mean by atheism stealing from a Christian theist world view. You high jack just enough law of causality to justify atheism.
What? What is the 'law of causality' and how is a 'Christian theist world view' and in what way did I 'high jack' it?
You are not making any sense.
But when a law causality leads to an ultimate cause, you chuck it out and say it all started UNCAUSED.
I never chucked it in, I can't therefore chuck it out. It is you that demands it to be in. I am merely presenting one possibility. The fact that you don't like the possibility because it doesn't fit with your Christian theist world view doesn't somehow mean that I hijack something from your Christian theist world view.
This suggests to me something else is going on in your objection to us believing God as the Creator. Something other than rational thought process must be fueling your objection to theism.
My advice is to stop the mind reading, you have demonstrated that your mind reading skills are dismal.
What I usually get from atheists is that the laws of causality are not certain - EXCEPT for theories that affirm atheism.
And now you go off as is your usual tactic arguing against some hypothetical group of people who aren't here.
Please tell us where these atheists are that you 'usually' get that from.
Or I get, God cannot be eternal - everything needs a cause - EXCEPT the universe which can be eternal.
I am willing to bet that nobody has ever told you that. I am sure that you obtained that via your mind reading skill not through actual conversation.
Or I get, Everything has a physical cause - except atheists' thoughts and theories about atheism.
Again, failed mind reading. Please try actually reading what people say, not what you imagine they would have said in your made up fairyland.
When there is nothing and there follows to be something as the Big Bang Theory proposes,
Actually the Big Bang Theory proposes no such thing.
we're safe to use the word "creation".
Yes you are. But it isn't the same meaning of the word that you were using.
Astrophysicist Hugh Ross refers to this as "the cosmic creation event".
Yes, and notice that he is a Christian apologist.
[p]Space , time, energy, matter trace their beginning to the cosmic creation event. That's what the Big Bang explanation has cosmologists at large agreeing on.[/b]
Not true.
If I told you that the consensus of biologists believe in evolution, you would have no problem. If I told you the consensus of cosmologists agree that space, time, energy, and matter started with the Big Bang, you say "Oh no, it is not a consensus."
Because it isn't a consensus.Pointing out an actual consensus in another science doesn't make it true that the claimed consensus in cosmology is real. Your claim is still false.
But in either case, with Evolution or Big Bang Theory, it is not unanimous but consensus.
The problem is, you don't seem to know what the Big Bang Theory actually is. I never said there isn't consensus on that. What I said there isn't consensus on is your wrong interpretation of what is in the Big Bang Theory.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipI don't think i spoke of 'eternity' at all, just creation. To be honest no human brain can really get their head around the concept of eternity. This doesn't mean of course that we should default to the position that an 'eternal being' must be the cause of creation. That would be no different than early man looking up in confusion at the sun and deciding it must be a God. In other words, i don't have the answer as to how things came into existence, but this doesn't mean your answer is therefore correct. Indeed, i find your answer very unlikely. Humans concept of time is simply not up to the task of comprehending eternity. Perhaps something can come from nothing. 'Impossible' you cry. Well they said that about the earth not being at the centre of the universe.
... Besides, I again said "If anything exists at all, then something must have existed eternally."
Yes, I would say the something existing eternally is God.
But I do not frame my axiom that way because it has to because other candidates for transcendent something eternally existing might be proposed.
IE. Laws of logic maybe.
Numbers m ...[text shortened]... ng material [/i] to evolve.
How was that selection made evolution style? Trial and error ?[/b]
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeWell said.
I don't think i spoke of 'eternity' at all, just creation. To be honest no human brain can really get their head around the concept of eternity. This doesn't mean of course that we should default to the position that an 'eternal being' must be the cause of creation. That would be no different than early man looking up in confusion at the sun and deci ...[text shortened]... mpossible' you cry. Well they said that about the earth not being at the centre of the universe.
Originally posted by sonshipJust a thought, but at least as far as the Earth is concerned evolution of species cannot have preceded her formation and so isn't eternal.I think 'created' means something very different to you. Like Paley and the watchmaker analogy, creation to you is inseparable from a Creator, which is why (as an atheist) i refute that we were 'created'.
Then there must be something else going on in your objection that has little to do with the reasons you present.
Besides, I again s ...[text shortened]... ng material [/i] to evolve.
How was that selection made evolution style? Trial and error ?
Originally posted by sonshiphttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Space , time, energy, matter trace their beginning to the cosmic creation event. That's what the Big Bang explanation has cosmologists at large agreeing on.
Read through it carefully.
1. Notice that the word 'creation' does not appear anywhere on the Wikipedia page.
2. Notice that the Big Bang Theory describes the evolution of the universe after a very dense state about which nothing much is actually known, nor described by the theory.
3. Notice that what you have claimed is 'consensus' might be similar to (but does not actually match) what appears under the heading 'Speculations'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Speculations
4. Notice this sentence:
It is not known what could have preceded the hot dense state of the early universe or how and why it originated, though speculation abounds in the field of cosmogony.
3 edits
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeWell, which do you think makes more sense ?
I don't think i spoke of 'eternity' at all, just creation. To be honest no human brain can really get their head around the concept of eternity. This doesn't mean of course that we should default to the position that an 'eternal being' must be the cause of creation. That would be no different than early man looking up in confusion at the sun and deci ...[text shortened]... mpossible' you cry. Well they said that about the earth not being at the centre of the universe.
1.) Some source produced the universe ?
2.) No source produced the universe ?
Given to choose between these two, I would choose #1.
But I do like some of what you wrote. I like that you said the human mind simply cannot get its hands around eternity. I agree with you mostly there.
"By faith we understand that the universe [Lit. ages] has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not come into being out of things which appear." (Hebrews 11:3)
That is a timeless truth. I think it applies today just as much as it applied to the readers 2,000 years ago. We cannot totally get our minds around the bringing into existence of the ages. We can get our hearts around it by faith.
As long as we are not prejudiced by an assumption that anything ascertained by faith must of necessity be not true, this works. As long as we acknowledge that there is a class of things which are ascertained by faith and yet are also true.
But it is not blind faith. It is faith informed by a certain amount of common sense reasoning. Something transcending the world, the universe [the ages] brought about the being of the universe if more preferred by my mind than that nothing, and non-being was the source of the universe [ the ages ].
Out of nothing, nothing comes.
1 edit
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
To be honest no human brain can really get their head around the concept of eternity. This doesn't mean of course that we should default to the position that an 'eternal being' must be the cause of creation.
It helps me that Someone has said so. And I simply cannot dismiss the demonstrations and character of the Speaker with verifying acts to demonstrate a transcendence over time and even death.
Unless there is something else going on in me which wants to shun the idea of God, I think I am on the right track to identifying and eternal God.
Christ claimed to be the eternal God become a man, and acted like it. Christ's claim was accompanied by acts that were miraculous. Christ could not be held by death. He demonstrated authority over it.
Many people can SAY many things. Not many SAID them and ACTED the part.
Originally posted by sonshipAnd other people would choose 2. What you cannot honestly do, is claim that 2 is ruled out by logic and then ignore it as a possibility.
Given to choose between these two, I would choose #1.
"By faith we understand that the universe
Well and good, but be honest enough to admit when something is a religious belief instead of pretending it follows from logic or is a known fact.
As long as we are not prejudiced by an assumption that anything ascertained by faith must of necessity be not true, this works.
Nor must it be necessarily true.
As long as we acknowledge that there is a class of things which are ascertained by faith and yet are also true.
Or not true, as the case may be.
But it is not blind faith. It is faith informed by a certain amount of common sense reasoning.
But only a certain amount. When you incorrectly claim that they follow from common sense and reasoning, then you are going too far.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipWhen being forced to choose between these two options, of course the only correct choice is 2.) because 1.) adds a hugely complicating factor, namely that of “the source”. If you require a source for the start of the universe, then you must be consistent and also require a source for “the source”. You can’t point to the universe and say “--> that needs a source!” and then point to “the source” and say “--> that does not need a source!”.
Well, which do you think makes more sense ?
1.) Some source produced the universe ?
2.) No source produced the universe ?
Given to choose between these two, I would choose #1.
If you don’t want to be that consistent, then you will need to be fair and choose option 2.) whereby you say: “Without any evidence pointing to a source we must assume there is no source”.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too*.
Of course, there is no need to choose either option. We can simply say “We don’t know, we might never know”. Nothing wrong with that.
* What an odd saying. How does one even eat a cake without having it first?
3 edits
Originally posted by Great King Rat
When being forced to choose between these two options, of course the only correct choice is 2.) because 1.) adds a hugely complicating factor, namely that of “the source”.
I suspect something else is probably fueling your objection.
I think you should honestly evaluate what these other factors could be.
Do you have the same reaction about musing on other possible causes? Do you normally reject good explanations for things just because they seem to you to add complication ? Do you usually reason -
"No explanation for something should be excepted that may lead to more complication" ?
If you require a source for the start of the universe, then you must be consistent and also require a source for “the source”.
Why ?
When you arrive at a possible best explanation for something you don't have to reject it as a best explanation because you don't have an explanation for that too.
You do not have to reject a best available explanation for something just because you don't have an explanation for that explanation too.
Imagine that in the future moon explorers discover something that looks very much like machinery on the other side of the moon. A good explanation is that some intelligent source has left them there in some time in the past.
Who were they?
Where did they come from?
We don't have an explanation for those questions.
This does not mean that we reject the explanation that another civilization left such machinery there solely because we have yet not explanation for the explanation of another intelligent source for the artifacts.
That's not bad. You can turn the same rule around and use it on me a Christian. You could say -
"You cannot reject the explanation that the universe came from nothing uncaused if that is the best explanation."
My response would be that I really don't think that is the best available explanation. Uniformity of experience doesn't encourage me that out of nothing something came, is the best explanation for the universes existence.
You can’t point to the universe and say “--> that needs a source!”
I sure can.
If you were presented with a motor engine and told that I must choose between two alternatives. And only ONE can be true.
1.) The engine is here because of the laws of internal combustion.
2.) The engine is here because of the life of Henry Ford.
I think you would realize that you need not make a dichotomy so that only one choice can be true. And no matter how much you learn about internal combustion you will never negate the need for the designing inventor Henry Ford.
Of we can further speculate on what some proposed spacial and material primordial singularity was. But the way I see it that never dispenses with a need for the acknowledgement of its own source.
Learning more and more about the internal combustion engine doesn't dispense with an recognition of and designing engineer. In this case Mr. Henry Ford.
and then point to “the source” and say “--> that does not need a source!”.
This is the "Who made the Creator?" argument I think.
The law of causality does not say that everything has a cause. It says everything that has a beginning has a cause.
By definition God had no beginning. So I am not obligated to extend the law of causality over something that had no beginning.
John Lennox (mathematician) and Dawkins (biologist) came to this point in a debate:
Dawkins: "The universe is an easier brute fact to accept than a conscious creator."
Lennox: "Well, who made it?"
Dawkins: "A God is a complicated entity, which requires a much more sophisticated and difficult explanation than a universe, which is, according to modern physics, a very simple entity. It's a very simple beginning; it's not a negligible beginning, but it's a very simple beginning. That has got to be easier to explain than something as complicated as a God."
Lennox: "I think you may have missed my question. I'm drawing a parallel. But I am getting the message [from you] that it's ridiculous for me to believe in a God who created the universe and me because they have to ask who created God. All I'm doing is turning that question around and saying the universe, you admit, created you because there's nothing else. Well then, who created it?"
Dawkins: "I understand you perfectly. Both of us are faced with the problem of saying how did things start."
Lennox: "Yes."
If you don’t want to be that consistent, then you will need to be fair and choose option 2.) whereby you say: “Without any evidence pointing to a source we must assume there is no source”.
You can’t have your cake and eat it as too*.
I can have my cake that God, by definition, is uncreated ... by definition. Causality says everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause.
Since by definition God did not BEGIN to exist, I am.
consistent.
It probably is the case that the God you do not believe in is not the God that I believe in. IE. You are objecting to a "BEGUN" or a "CREATED" God.
Of course, there is no need to choose either option. We can simply say “We don’t know, we might never know”. Nothing wrong with that.
We could. We could graduate from atheism to agnosticism.
I believe the Source is God. I believe the source is transcendent and timeless and spaceless and not material. Now numbers are abstract objects that are timeless, spaceless, and not material. But the number 7 doesn't DO anything.
But a WILL, MIND, while timeless and transcendent can do something. So I think the will of God and the designing mind of God is a better explanation than either an eternal universe or one that came about from nothing uncaused with no design.
Now I am really sleepy. So I hope that it was responsive to your points. Goodnight.
Originally posted by Great King RatBut once eaten, you no longer have it. I think it is directed at those who enjoy looking at cake and admiring it whole, possibly a fancy cake with ornate icing. There comes a point where you must decide between keeping your nice looking cake and cutting it up and eating it.
* What an odd saying. How does one even eat a cake without having it first?
I suspect something else is probably fueling your objection.
I know you do. By changing "atheists" into "scared, or angry theists pretending to believe God does not exist" you are simply strengthening your own belief - or rather guarding it from being weakened.
Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it more true though.
I lack any belief in one or more gods. There are no emotions involved in that. No matter how much you may protest, it remains the only truth.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat sounds like a reasonable explanation.
But once eaten, you no longer have it. I think it is directed at those who enjoy looking at cake and admiring it whole, possibly a fancy cake with ornate icing. There comes a point where you must decide between keeping your nice looking cake and cutting it up and eating it.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou may laugh, but so far in this thread I have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that:
I have won it every time we have discussed it, you are simply too suborn to admit it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by sonship
chuckle.
1. You used a false dichotomy, that you have used in the past and have been corrected on in the past, and is genuinely a false dichotomy.
2. Several other claims you stated as fact were in fact statements of belief.
3. The claim that you made had scientific consensus does in fact not have scientific consensus.
I don't see any admission from you that you were mistaken and I fully expect you to pretend you were not wrong and try and pass the same false claims off as fact in future threads.
Originally posted by sonshipBut they are both false.
[bIf you were presented with a motor engine and told that I must choose between two alternatives. And only ONE can be true.
1.) The engine is here because of the laws of internal combustion.
2.) The engine is here because of the life of Henry Ford.
.[/b]
Ford had nothing to do with the invention or development of the internal combustion engine.