doubting_tommy Posted January 6, 2011 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 264 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 11 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/19/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted January 6, 2011 Science as understood, propagated, and taught today doesn't favor you. But like I said before, keep your faith fires burning. Do you have any evidence for this claim? Can you show me a single scientist or textbook who claims that the laws of thermodynamics definitely applied at the instant of the Big Bang? You are (incorrectly) of the mind that religion is all faith, and not evidence, based. So far in our debate, I've given you solid scientific evidence that supports my position, whereas you have offered little but "maybe we don't understand," or "perhaps in the future the Laws will change." I have the science on my side. It is your position that is "faith based." The very laws you are trying to use as evidence of your position, are undermined by the conclusions you draw- you are trying to use scientific laws to demonstrate the existence of something which is not bound by those laws. This acknowledges my point- the laws of science as we currently understand them do not necessarily hold in all circumstances- you simply want to apply this to God and God alone, rather than to the moment of the Big Bang. The scientific evidence on my side includes the fact that 99.9% of the universe is inhospitable to human life- something which counts against the claim that the creator of the universe created it for the benefit of mankind. The scientific evidence also includes the existence of physical paradoxes, demonstrating the incompleteness and flaws in our current understanding of physics, quantum entanglement, demonstrating the possibility of non-standard causation, Hawking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Baffled? Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. Psalms 119:105 Believe~ Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. 1 Corinthians 12:3 >>>>>()<<<<< Logic inspired by the Holy Spirit. Again, the very reason all of this baffles you.... Have you considered the possibility that it is baffling to me because it doesn't actually make sense? If God is not bound by the laws of logic, then it would be possible for Him to Exist and not Exist at the same time. Is that really something you want to concede?.... Condescension Or Love? What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? Job 15:14 Logical Or Love? He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isaiah 53:3-6 Can You Believe Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. Revelation 3:1 Him Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: John 11:25 Or Not.... The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:35-36 Love, Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyguy Posted January 6, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 373 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 3,331 Content Per Day: 0.59 Reputation: 71 Days Won: 10 Joined: 10/15/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/24/1965 Share Posted January 6, 2011 There is a difference between believing that God *will* do something and that God *could* do something. The Bible may say that God will remain in existence for eternity, but that is not the same thing as a logical proof that God could not do otherwise. If God is not eternal, or could someday end His existance, then He could hardly promise eternal life to His followers. If God breaks His promises, then He would be a liar, thus a sinner, and not be the God of the Bible. As for the idea that to lie is to sin, and God cannot sin, could God simply decide tomorrow that it is not a sin to lie Read what I wrote in my last post. God's Word is unchanging. He won't decide lying is okay in the future. many conscripted soldiers have been ordered to do things they should not. The difference is, God's Law is perfect. My contention is that it is not our relationship with God, but Gods relationship with immutable, universal moral laws, which would ground this obligation. As I said in one of my first posts to you, those "immutable, universal laws" come from God's unchanging character. God commands we all obey Him - thus, obeying His laws is obeying Him. God doesn't change - and His laws don't change. Nobody is forcing you to obey those laws. You have the free will to break them. Just as you have the free will to break man's laws. You will suffer consequences either way. For example, go rob a bank, and after you get caught, cry about how unfair it was for the judge to throw you into prison. But this was precisely my point! Remember, the parent analogy was raised because youre suggesting that if X creates Y then Y has a duty to obey X. Yet the case of parents demonstrate that this is not so- the duty to obey our parents is not absolute, therefore the fact that they created us cannot be sufficient in order to demand obedience. Parents must also adhere to a certain code of behaviour, so the analogy doesnt work. Wow, you really haven't read the Bible much, have ya? Once again, you dismiss the most important part - God is perfect, thus what God commands is always correct, just, and right - unlike sinful, human parents. Thus, duty to obey God is indeed absolute, because to obey Him is always correct, just, and right. To get to the heart of the matter, we both know you won't obey because you simply don't want to obey. Gods word is either unchanging because He cannot change it, or because He chooses not to. If it is the former, then God is bound by external laws of morality, if it is the latter, then morality is arbitrary. *sigh* Again, God's word is unchanging because His word is a direct refection of His character, which does not change. "I am the Lord, I change not." (Malachi 3:6) Unless He changes His mind. He won't. See Scripture above. All I ask is that you extend to me the same courtesy that I extend to you- I assume that you are genuine in your beliefs and interested in discussing them. If you are convinced that it is a waste of time, theres little I can do to change your mind. If/when I meet God I shall be certain to ask Him why it was that He didnt provide me with sufficient evidence for His existence. Hopefully, I will get an answer. That seems only fair. Allow me to quote another member of Worthy - Shiloh357 - who said: "No amount of evidence will convince a person who is unwilling to be convinced. It is possible to set the standards of proof so high that he/she is beyond being convinced. Often, skeptics set impossible standards of evidence/proof that cannot possibly be met." It's like when you claim the laws of physics acted differently at the beginning of the Universe, and I said, "well, unless you give me photographic proof from the beginning of the Universe, I won't believe you." I then have set the bar so high, you could not possibly make your case. I have shown through accepted, proven scientific laws that the Universe could not create itself from nothingness, nor can it be eternal. You then turn around and say, "well, those laws may change in the future!" or "maybe the scientists are wrong!" You set the bar so high, because you really don't want to be convinced. It's the same thing when it comes to obeying God. Any casual reader of this thread. believer or otherwise, would concede that it's reasonable to accept that if God exists, and He is holy, just and perfect as the Bible says, and He indeed created us, then He has the right to make the rules and expect us to obey them. God has given you enough proof that He exists by the simple fact there is a creation. The creation is proof of the Creator, the same way a building is proof of a builder. And your conscience, unless it has already been seared, bears witness to that fact. God provides just enough clues so that those that want to find Him, will. And there is also enough doubt so that those that don't want to find Him, won't. I am still here trying to reason with you because Jude 22 tells us to "be merciful to those who doubt." But there does come a point when we are commanded to "shake the dust" off our feet and move on. (Matthew 10:14) Look up Ephesians 4:17-19, 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12, John 3:19, and Titus 1:15. You may just be humbled a bit. I know some philosophers who would disagree with you on that In any case, the point is that our understanding of causality is derived from our observations. With insufficient observational information about causal conditions at the beginning of the universe, we may not be justified in assuming that causes occur prior to their effects as the universe comes into being. Until you can offer any actual scientific proof that invalidates the Law of Causation (which so far, nobody has - that is why it is called a "law"), I'll continue to use the law as it is accepted and taught. Have you considered the possibility that it is baffling to me because it doesnt actually make sense? If God is not bound by the laws of logic, then it would be possible for Him to Exist and not Exist at the same time. Is that really something you want to concede? There is no need to concede it, because, once again, as we are talking about spiritual things and the nature of God, you are at the disadvantage because you do not have the Holy Spirit indwelling in you that teaches believers about Him, His nature, His ways, and His will. Like I said, when I was an atheist, these things boggled my mind. I just couldn't understand this stuff. But once I stepped out in faith, and took that first step toward God, He met me where I was. The Bible says without faith it is impossible to please Him (Hebrews 11:6). But He promises that if we search for Him with all our heart, we will find Him (Deuteronomy 4:29). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyguy Posted January 6, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 373 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 3,331 Content Per Day: 0.59 Reputation: 71 Days Won: 10 Joined: 10/15/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/24/1965 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Continued... It is not simply the fact that there is no scientific evidence for non-temporal creation which counts against you here, the very concept of non-temporal causation is incoherent. You have not explained why God should be exempt from the rules which apply to *every* single instance of creation which we have ever observed. On the one hand, you use observational data to claim that nothing can create anything, yet on the other you want to throw out the entire rulebook in making God exempt from the very laws you invoke in attempting to prove His existence. It seems like youre simply trying to have your cosmological cake and eat it. Again, God is exempt because as the Creator of the Universe and all of it's laws, He thus is not bound by the Universe or those laws He created. I use naturalistic scientific laws with you because you don't accept that God exists. But if God does exist, it really goes without saying that He cannot be subjected to His creation, unlike us, who are created beings. My claim is that nothing can act except within time and that the concept itself is not only impossible but incoherrent. My evidence for this claim is the fact that it is impossible for us to conceptualise non-temporal action and that every single instance of observed action occurs within a temporal context. As unregenerated finite beings bound by this Universe, that is true. But if one accepts that God exists, it's not hard to conceptualise Him as timeless, because that is how He describes Himself. And any God that is subjected to His creation - who is not the master of it in every way - is no God at all. What evidence do you have for the claim that non-temporal action is coherent and possible? The existance of the Universe. Again, the cosmology of the Big Bang teaches that time itself was created at the event. If you don't like that, or agree with that, take it up with the world's physicists and cosmologists. Given the existence of physical paradoxes, it is a certainty that our current understanding of physics is in some sense deficient. It is entirely reasonable to suppose that we will continue to modify our description of the physical universe as new information becomes available. Sure. But until that day comes, I'll stick with what is accepted and taught today. What then do you have to work with? All of which will admit that speculation as to how the universe worked at the moment of the Big Bang is pure speculation. But speculation is your bread and butter! Its curious that you seem to think that the idea that existing scientific knowledge may be expanded upon/modified in order to explain what is currently unexplainable Again, until you can prove the laws that are accepted and taught now to be in error, I have the evidence on my side. Yes, they can. Science and supernaturalism, however, are not compatible. Science is not supposed to be biased, but to simply follow the evidence wherever it leads. Is it not possible that science may one day find proof that ghosts exist? (Hey, speculation is fun!) I'll finish answering the rest later tonight. I have to run to the store. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyguy Posted January 7, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 373 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 3,331 Content Per Day: 0.59 Reputation: 71 Days Won: 10 Joined: 10/15/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/24/1965 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Continued.... Sure. Do you think these things literally happened? Yup. It’s certainly unscientific- it’s magic, just like sowing dragon’s teeth in the earth an having them grow into hoplites. And besides, you’re begging the question since you assume that God created the universe in the first place. If we’re going to assume that premise, then anything is possible- God might as well have created man from clouds as from the soil if He’s going to use magic. If God does indeed exist, it would hardly be "magic. It would be perfectly natural. And as far as begging the question, you've been doing that very thing with your belief, without scientific evidence, of a Universe creating itself. Do you have any evidence for this claim? Can you show me a single scientist or textbook who claims that the laws of thermodynamics definitely applied at the instant of the Big Bang? As I have the proof that they apply as accepted and taught today, hense, being called "laws," it is safe for me to say they applied the very same way then. What have you got? You've got absolutely nothing but speculation they acted "strangely" in the past. As you make your assertion without any proof, the burden is upon you to discredit me. They reason many atheists make the claim that these scientific laws "perhaps acted differently in the past" is to avoid the obvious conclusion that nothing can't create anything. The very laws you are trying to use as evidence of your position, are undermined by the conclusions you draw- you are trying to use scientific laws to demonstrate the existence of something which is not bound by those laws. I'm not "trying" - I have. I'm doing the a ball under one of three cups breakdown. If you have 3 cups, one cup being the Universe creating itself from nothingness, the other being an eternal Universe, and the last cup being created by God, if I take away the first two cups, it's apparent which cup the ball is under. I'm using the laws of naturalism to prove to one who believes in nothing but naturalism, that your position is untenable. the laws of science as we currently understand them do not necessarily hold in all circumstances Prove it. The scientific evidence on my side includes the fact that 99.9% of the universe is inhospitable to human life- something which counts against the claim that the creator of the universe created it for the benefit of mankind. Wrong. It actually proves the Bible correct when it says God only gave the Earth to man. And for someone who claims they've read some of the Bible, you missed the obvious parts. Such as the fact the entire Creation is under God's curse. And the fact that God promises in the Bible that He will restore all of His Creation after the Millennial Reign of Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyguy Posted January 7, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 373 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 3,331 Content Per Day: 0.59 Reputation: 71 Days Won: 10 Joined: 10/15/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/24/1965 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Continued... The scientific evidence also includes the existence of physical paradoxes, demonstrating the incompleteness and flaws in our current understanding of physics, quantum entanglement, demonstrating the possibility of non-standard causation A "quantum" anything requires the existance of energy and/or matter to be even possible. Hawking’s claim that non-temporal causation is incoherent and Krauss’ claim that ‘a universe from nothing’ is a scientific possibility. Hawking said for it to even be possible, gravity must already exist. It's hardly a Universe from "nothing." And Hawking offered no actual proof for his claims. Simple speculation rears it's ugly head once more. Again, I can invoke my giant bowl of chilli and be just as valid. Furthermore, you are erroneously attempting to apply the laws of thermodynamics to a timeframe in which no observations have ever been made Again, I have the proof that they act the way they are accepted and taught today, with no reason to believe they acted differently in the past. You, on the other hand, have got a big bowl of nothing. we have good reason to think that the laws of physics behaved differently than they do now. P-R-O-V-E.....I-T. Finally, all one has to do is apply Ockham’s Razor in order to see which of us has the stronger position. Ockham's razor states that we should not multiply causes beyond what's necessary to explain the effect. You: "We don't know how a Universe created itself from nothing, but we must assume the laws as we now know them acted differently in a way we can't explain or prove, but we know it must be so, because the Universe exists. OR, our Universe was birthed from another Universe, even though we can't prove that either. And we also can't prove where that Universe came from. Maybe the laws acted strangely in that Universe instead and were carried over to this Universe. Yet, we also can't explain where the initial matter and energy came from, but we also must assume that they have somehow created themselves or always existed in defiance of the laws as we now know them......oh wait,....I mean, they could have created themselves or always existed if we apply the speculation that the laws somehow acted strangely in the past....again without a shred of proof....but they simply had to...because it's really all we've got to work with. WAIT! No, actually we can put our faith in the hope man will someday come up with the answers we need to finally get rid of God...." Me: "The cause was an eternal, transcendent God, the effect is the Universe." Looks my my position is the strongest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Believer112 Posted January 7, 2011 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 39 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 540 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 32 Days Won: 3 Joined: 09/06/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/29/1960 Share Posted January 7, 2011 All I ask is that you extend to me the same courtesy that I extend to you- I assume that you are genuine in your beliefs and interested in discussing them. If you are convinced that it is a waste of time, there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted January 7, 2011 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,425 Content Per Day: 8.00 Reputation: 21,578 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted January 7, 2011 You are casting aspersions at God for a world that you've given no proof exists - other than in your own imagination. I think you're still misunderstanding the point. A 'possible world' does not refer to something which exists in this context, it refers to a logically possible world- a world which God could have created but (as far as we know) chose not to. (Also, in this context, 'world' refers to a universe, not a planet). Nobody said God could not do it, I'm simply saying He didn't. Scripture makes it clear that God made only the Earth for man (Psalm 115:16), and the drama is being played out here. Being omnipotent doesn't mean God is required to do everything one can imagine. It's like the old, "can God make a rock too big for Him to lift" nonsense. Being omnipotent means you have access to all power. There are plenty of things God can't do that I listed before. Such as "sin," "will Himself out of existance," "lie," etc. The power in question is the power to have created a different possible world, instead of the world which was created. (This assumes that only one universe has been created). On what basis do you believe that God would not be able to will Himself out of existence or lie if He desired to? That's like if you were in the Army and said to your superior officer, "Just because you have authority over me by law, what gives you the right to command me?" No, that simply begs the question. And it's a bad analogy for at least two reasons. Firstly, for soldiers who have not been conscripted, they have consented to join the army, and the authority of their officers can be derived (in part) from this consent. I do not consent for God to have authority over me. I never 'signed up'. Secondly, even in cases where soldiers have signed up of their own free will, the law alone is not sufficient to give rise to moral authority- if an officer orders you to murder innocent women and children, you ought not obey him. Or saying to your parents, "Why does the fact that you two made me, and sustain me with food, clothes, and a roof over my head, give you the right to tell me how to behave?" This doesn't beg the question, but it still doesn't work since a parent's authority over their child is not absolute. It is conditional on the parent behaving in a certain way- a child is not bound to obey a parent who commands him to do evil, or who abuses him in some way. It is not sufficient for the parents to say 'we made this child, therefore we have authority over him'- there are additional conditions which must be met. But being the creator of a child is not even a necessary condition- a parent who adopts an orphan has no role in the child's creation yet may still exercise authority over the child identical to that exercised by a biological parent. A man may not use his gun to sin, but he still might. A woman may not murder her child, but she might still sin and do so. God, however can not sin. Because He is a sinless creator, only He has the right to make the rules and expect obedience. Don't take this the wrong way, but you sound just like a spoiled child. What does it mean to say that 'X committed a sin'? If the definition of a sin is an action which contravenes the will of God, then God cannot sin. But this eliminates any moral dimension to the concept of sin. Sin becomes nothing more than whatever God happens to will at any particular moment in time. Without an external measure, God can will anything He wants, sin is entirely arbitrary, and thus fails to ground a moral obligation to obey Him. All you are really saying is that God cannot do what He does not want to do, and that this somehow explains why we owe Him obedience. As for me sounding like a spoilt child, you should bear in mind that I don't necessarily think that we wouldn't have a duty to obey God, if He exists, I simply don't agree with the reasons you have given as to why we would have such a duty. The law of causailty states that whatever comes into existance must have a cause. The Universe came into existance, and thus must have a cause. A cause cannot be nothingness. You are claiming the law of causality may not work this way when it comes to the beginning of the Universe - prove it. Tell me where the singularity came from. I am not disputing the claim that whatever comes into existence must have a cause, or that the universe came into existence or that a cause cannot be nothingness. What I am disputing is the assumption that causes must always occur prior to their effects. Causality as we understand it comes from our observances of events within the universe. There is no reason to assume that the same laws apply to the coming into existence of the universe itself. Human logic? Hardly. What other kind of logic is there? God is only subjected to His own unchanging nature. Why is God's nature necessarily unchanging? Matter, Energy, Time, and Space, were all created at the exact instant by God. ("In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth" - Genesis 1:1) One (M,E,S,T) did not "need" to be here before the other. Even Stephen Hawking said time itself was created at the Big Bang. Read his lecture, "The Beginning of Time." The implication of Hawking's claim is that the question 'what happened before the Big Bang?' is as meaningless as asking 'what is the colour of curiosity?'. You have not explained how creation can occur in the absence of time. Every single instance of creation which we have ever observed has been 'creation-in-time'. You need to explain why the concept of creation can make sense in the absence of a temporal structure to facilitate it. If time does not exist, how does God manage to 'do' anything? Space, matter, time continuum is one of more common sense and logic ... when God brought into being corporeal substance with the element of space in between- time began for now there was a beginning and an ending in things... a judgment of motion to divide light from dark meters our universal understanding of time and all travel in the corporeal of creation is factored in basic foundations of our mathematical processes... take away the corporeal of creation and you have the infinities of Father, Son and Holy Spirit in eternities past of our created begininngs... this is why in our math process though never experienced the infinite must be realized! You can always add, subtract, multiply, divide with result and again and again... Love Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Continued... Finally, all one has to do is apply Ockham's Razor in order to see which of us has the stronger position. Ockham's razor states that we should not multiply causes beyond what's necessary to explain the effect. You: "We don't know how a Universe created itself from nothing, but we must assume the laws as we now know them acted differently in a way we can't explain or prove, but we know it must be so, because the Universe exists. OR, our Universe was birthed from another Universe, even though we can't prove that either. And we also can't prove where that Universe came from. Maybe the laws acted strangely in that Universe instead and were carried over to this Universe. Yet, we also can't explain where the initial matter and energy came from, but we also must assume that they have somehow created themselves or always existed in defiance of the laws as we now know them......oh wait,....I mean, they could have created themselves or always existed if we apply the speculation that the laws somehow acted strangely in the past....again without a shred of proof....but they simply had to...because it's really all we've got to work with. WAIT! No, actually we can put our faith in the hope man will someday come up with the answers we need to finally get rid of God...." Me: "The cause was an eternal, transcendent God, the effect is the Universe." Looks like my position is the strongest. Simply He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. Ecclesiastes 3:11 Jesus Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doubting_tommy Posted January 13, 2011 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 264 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 11 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/19/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted January 13, 2011 If God is not eternal, or could someday end His existance, then He could hardly promise eternal life to His followers. If God breaks His promises, then He would be a liar, thus a sinner, and not be the God of the Bible. I don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts